The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Court Reverses Contempt Citation for Woman Cursing About Delay

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Larry Bodine

shutterstock_127531112

An Illinois appellate court reversed a contempt citation against a woman who was heard cursing about unreasonable delays in the courthouse hallways, holding that criminal contempt defendants have the same due process rights as other criminal defendants.

In State of Illinois v. Perez, the court reversed the lower court’s decision convicting Valerie Perez of indirect criminal contempt, citing a lack of due process, insufficient evidence and the judge’s involvement in the case.

Unlike direct criminal contempt, indirect criminal contempt is based on conduct the court has not personally witnessed. Therefore, indirect criminal contempt should not be adjudicated in a summary proceeding initiated by the judge, according to the appeals court.

“I waited all fucking morning”

Perez was in Will County, IL, traffic court waiting to appear on a speeding ticket.
When the court took a recess, she exited the courtroom and was overheard by a bailiff saying, “I waited all fucking morning and now she takes a break.”

After bailiff Bev Richardson relayed the comment to the court, the trial judge returned to the bench and instructed the state to prepare a petition for contempt. The court denied Perez’s request for a short continuance to prepare for trial and immediately held a hearing.

After finding Perez guilty of indirect criminal contempt, the court summarily sentenced the woman to serve eight days in jail.

Bailiff Richardson testified, “all the way down the hall she was using the word ‘F,’ and people were looking at her.” Richardson added, “Once I told her she couldn’t do that, she said a few more words and she simmered down because I went to tell the judge.”

Despite the bailiff’s testimony that Perez did not direct the language toward any court personnel, she was found guilty.

Procedural Flaws

The appeals court found that three acts infringed on Perez’s due process rights.

  • First, the prosecutor’s inartfully drafted petition was a “Petition for Rule To Show Cause,” which was incorrect for the alleged crime and improperly shifted burden of proof to Perez.
  • Second, denying the request for a continuance eliminated the right to have notice of the charge within a reasonable time in advance of the hearing. .
  • Finally, the appeals court suggested the judge was “personally embroiled” in the conflict and should have considered a voluntary recusal. In other words the judge involved in the incident should have another judge determine the issue. See Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 465 (1971).

Insufficient Evidence

On appeal, the test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.

Although the trial judge felt the words spoken were intended to embarrass, the appeals court concluded that the facts were insufficient to establish this view. Instead, the court concluded, “there seems to be an element of truthfulness to respondent’s declaration and verbalized frustration” which “may constitute protected speech under the first amendment.”

The case is The People of the State of Illinois v. Valerie Perez, –N.E. 3d.– 2014 IL App (3d) 120978.

 

Posted in Blog, Criminal Law / DUI

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

January 15th, 2021

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

January 13th, 2021

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

January 11th, 2021

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

January 8th, 2021

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

January 6th, 2021

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.