U.S. v. Ogoke

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding defendant’s counsel in contempt under 18 USC sections 401(1) and (3) based on incident in which counsel raised in his closing argument failure of govt. to call certain witness, where said issue had been subject of pre-trial order precluding defendant’s counsel from mentioning said failure during trial. Dist. Ct. could properly disbelieve counsel’s testimony that he was unaware that he had violated pre-trial order until after he completed his closing argument, since: (1) parties had spent some time on said issue during pre-trial phase of case; and (2) counsel laid groundwork for his improper closing argument with specific line of questioning during trial. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could use summary procedure under Rule 42(b) to find counsel in contempt, where counsel’s actions took place in front of Dist. Ct. Fact that Dist. Ct. allowed counsel to present testimony at hearing on contempt issue did not require that Dist. Ct. use procedures set forth in Rule 42(a), and counsel was not entitled to any specific notice of charges against him because Dist. Ct. was justified in proceeding summarily under Rule 42(b).