Pounders v. Watso

521 U.S. 982 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Watson (D) was an attorney who represented Mora in a multi-defendant murder trial in California before judge Pounders (P). On April 7, Counsel for one of Mora’s co-defendants repeatedly raised the issue in open court over the punishment that the defendants might receive if they were convicted. P stated that possible punishment was not a subject open to discussion. It was clear that while this matter was being discussed at a bench conference only or reiterated in open court, that D remained at the defense table during that conference. On April 20, the matter of punishment was raised again by counsel for a different co-defendant, and the matter was rebuked with a legal explanation by the judge. The next day the matter was raised again by a co-counsel, and the judge made a strong rebuke once again. D was sitting down at the defendant’s table and was not part of that process. The attorney who made the current overture apologized in open court. The judge then made an open court statement about how inappropriate, such conduct was. On June 21, D was questioning Mora and once again brought up sentencing issues. (The colloquy is on page 116 Re 5th edition.) The judge then called D to the bench and asked why she should not be held in contempt for discussing punishment; D gave her reasons for the state of mind issues for Mora and then told the judge that none of the other sidebars regarding that issue were attended by her. D was then found in contempt under 1209(a)(5). The next day, the judge then issued a written opinion citing the fact that D was present or immediately adjacent to all sidebar conferences and was present in open court on the 7th and the 20th when the warning was repeated in open court and again on April 21st when her own co-counsel apologized for disobeying the court order. The judge also found that D’s statements permanently prejudiced the jury in her client’s favor and that the prejudice could not be overcome. D was sentenced to two days in jail to be served after the trial. D filed habeas petitions to the District Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court; they were denied. D then filed federal habeas actions, and they were denied. D then appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing due process violations because she did not have notice of the prohibited conduct and the trial judge could not have known without a hearing that her conduct was willful. The Court of Appeals held that her conduct was not so disruptive as to justify a summary contempt procedure. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.