Matter of Contempt of Greenberg
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
849 F.2d 1251 (1988)
During closing argument in a criminal trial, defense attorney Stanley Greenberg (defendant) objected to the prosecutor's characterization of an earlier objection; the judge told him the objection was improper and to sit down, and when Greenberg disagreed and asked for a ruling twice, the judge told him to sit down and be quiet, warning he'd be in trouble for disrespect, after which Greenberg complied. Following a recess, the judge found Greenberg in summary criminal contempt under Rule 42(a) and fined him $500, describing in his recounting that there "was a slamming of something" during the exchange, but his subsequent contempt order never certified that he actually saw or heard the contemptuous conduct or that it occurred in his actual presence, as the rule requires. Greenberg appealed.
Whether, for a summary criminal-contempt proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42 to be valid, the judge must explicitly certify that he saw or heard the contemptuous conduct.