3/26/2023 0 Comments Judge earman![]() ![]() The contempt hearing was presided over by a judge other than Judge Lenderman. Subsequently, Judge Lenderman issued a second order to show cause which included the contempt issue now on appeal. The judge returned to his courtroom and presided over hearings until 5 p.m. Wasserman had been very abusive and that she needed to go home. Decker hung up the phone before he used any foul language.Īccording to Judge Lenderman, when he returned to his chambers from the courtroom, Ms. Wasserman, on the other hand, contended that either he used no obscenities or Ms. Wasserman began screaming at her, calling her a "little motherf-" and calling the judge a "motherf- son of a b-." Mr. Decker sent him a message, he declined to speak to Mr. The judge was still in court and, when Ms. Wasserman became angry and asked to speak to Judge Lenderman. Decker, who informed him that the judge had directed that an order to show cause be issued. Wasserman called the judge's chambers and spoke to Ms. Wasserman's failure to appear.Ībout an hour after the hearing, Mr. Judge Lenderman instructed his judicial assistant, Cindy Decker, to prepare an order to show cause for Mr. Wasserman, a lawyer, failed to appear at a court hearing before Judge John Lenderman in response to a subpoena issued to compel production of a file in Mr. The facts underlying the contempt adjudication are as follows. Wasserman's conduct, while ill-mannered and reprehensible, does not constitute indirect criminal contempt as a matter of law. Phillip Wasserman appeals his conviction for indirect criminal contempt. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING The DCA, emphasizing that it was only addressing the contempt question, said its reversal of the judgment of contempt should not be read as condoning the attorney’s conduct, which it called “clearly unprofessional, disrespectful and totally without civility and common courtesy.” The DCA, however, agreed that the Florida Supreme Court acted correctly last month when it suspended the attorney’s license to practice law in Florida. ![]() The DCA said that because the comments did not constitute a “clear and present danger” to the orderly administration of justice, the power of indirect criminal contempt could not be used to punish their utterance. The DCA reversed a lower court’s contempt finding against an attorney who, in a telephone conversation with a judicial assistant, directed a string of profanities at the assistant and the judge for whom she worked. While an attorney’s inappropriate comments aimed at the judiciary may be enough to support disciplinary action against him by the Florida Supreme Court, they are insufficient to support a finding of indirect criminal contempt, the 2nd DCA said. Free speech - comments aimed at judiciary ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |