Cite as: 521 U. S. 982 (1997)
Per Curiam
By Ms. Watson: "[T]hroughout this trial sometimes you've had to get up at 4:00 in the morning and not go to sleep until 10:00 at night? "Ms. Walker [for the People of California]: Objection, your honor, relevance. "The Court: Sustained. "By Ms. Watson: And during that four years [that you have been in prison], you were facing the death penalty until just the day before we started. "Ms. Walker: Your honor, People are going to object. "The Court: Sustained. "Ms. Walker: Ask Miss Watson to be admonished and the Court— "The Court: Sustained. We've already talked about this at side bar. Follow the Court's admonitions. "By Ms. Watson: You're facing life without possibility of parole?" App. to Pet. for Cert. 30-31.
At that point, Judge Pounders called counsel to the bench. The judge asked respondent why he should not hold her in contempt for discussing punishment after he had "at least twice ordered counsel not to cover" the issue. Respondent replied, "I think it goes to [Mora's] state of mind as to why he would take this risk at this point in revealing that he was the person who called 911." When the judge asked why respondent did not raise the point at sidebar, particularly when her co-counsel Gutierrez had been admonished for raising the issue, Watson responded: "I wasn't at side bar with any of that involving Mr. Gutierrez . . . ." The judge said, "You're in violation of a court order. You do not think that's relevant to anything?" Watson responded, "I didn't think it was." Id., at 31, 32.
Judge Pounders then found respondent in contempt for violating Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209(a)(5) (West 1997), which provides that "[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment,
985
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007