986
Per Curiam
order, or process of the court" is grounds for contempt. The next day, on June 22, the judge issued a written order of contempt finding that "the questions asked by contemnor of Defendant Mora in the presence of the jury had as its [sic] sole purpose improperly advising the jury of the potential penalty for the defendants in violation of the court order." App. to Pet. for Cert. 26. He found "contemnor was aware of the Order," since she was
"at all times . . . present (a) at or immediately adjacent to all side bar conferences and (b) present in open court on April 7, 1994, when the initial warning was given, and (c) on April 20, 1994, when the warning was repeated in open court, and (d) on April 21, 1994, when co-counsel Mr. Gutierrez apologized in open court for defying that same order." Ibid.
The court imposed a 2-day jail sentence to be served after trial.
On July 8, two days after the murder case was submitted to the jury, Judge Pounders gave respondent another opportunity to justify her actions. She again explained and argued through her counsel that she thought her questions were relevant and " 'not covered by the court's previous rulings or admonitions.' " 102 F. 3d, at 436. Judge Pounders was not convinced. Respondent, he noted, did not ask for a side bar for clarification. He found:
" 'I think she has permanently prejudiced this jury in favor of her client. . . . They know the penalty he's facing . . . and they know that the person that was killed [a gang member] isn't worth that penalty, and so they are not going to find him guilty of the major charge.
. . . . .
" 'And when the penalty is as extreme as this one is presented to the jury, I think that's a prejudice that cannot be overcome. . . .
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007