DORSEY K. OFFUTT, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence supported the conviction for making insolent remarks to the court, but not for asking prejudicial questions. The sentence was reduced.
Appellant was convicted of contempt of court for making insolent remarks and asking prejudicial questions during a prior trial. This was the third app…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The case is here for the third time. We cite in the margin references to its prior history in the Supreme Court and in this Court.1 On the last trial, the subject of the present appeal, appellant was convicted of contempt of court upon the charge that, during the trial of United States v. Peckham, reported on appeal at 93 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 210 F. 2d 693, “[o]n numerous occasions he made insolent, insulting and offensive remarks to the court, and was guilty of gross discourtesy to the court.” We hold that the evidence supports the conviction upon this charge and that the validity of the conviction is not impaired by error. Appellant was also convicted upon the charge that on several occasions he asked questions of witnesses during said Peck-ham trial that were highly prejudicial to the witness and as to which there was no foundation. We hold that the evidence does not. support, with the required freedom from doubt, a conviction of criminal contempt upon this charge.
The District Court sentenced appellant to be committed to the custody of the United States Marshal for forty-eight hours. Considering the history of the case as a whole and our present reversal of the conviction upon one of the charges, as above stated, we think the sentence should be reduced to commitment to the custody of the United States Marshal for six hours.2
The case will be remanded to the District Court with directions to modify the judgment so that the adjudication of guilt is limited to the charge contained in paragraph numbered I in the order to show cause and so that the sentence is reduced to commitment to the custody of the United States Marshal for six hours instead of for forty-eight hours.
Judgment, as so modified, affirmed.
. Offutt v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 208 F. 2d 842, reversed, Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11; Id., 98 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 232 F. 2d 69, 70, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 988, 76 S.Ct. 1049, 100 L.Ed. 786.
. See United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 304-305, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; Rosenfeld v. United States, 4 Cir., 167 F. 2d 222, 223.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1972)
-
In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Chokwe Lumumba, 794 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1947)
- Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1954)
- Peckham v. United States, 210 F.2d 693 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
- French v. Texas, 351 U.S. 988 (U.S. 1956)
- Dorsey K. Offutt v. United States, 232 F.2d 69 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
- Offutt v. United States, 208 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
- Rosenfeld v. United States, 167 F.2d 222 (4th Cir. 1948)