## Facts

- Stanley I. Greenberg, defense counsel in a federal criminal trial, objected during the government’s rebuttal closing argument to what he believed was a misstatement of his prior remarks.
- The trial judge directed Greenberg to sit down and be quiet; Greenberg responded that he “respectfully disagree[d]” and twice requested a ruling on his objection.
- The exchange ended with Greenberg stating he was sitting, after which argument continued.
- After a recess, the judge stated on the record that Greenberg had an “outburst,” “lost his composure,” “slam[med]” something, and “shouted out at the court,” describing the conduct as disruptive and referencing prior warnings to counsel.
- The district court summarily adjudged Greenberg in criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401, proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a), and imposed a $500 fine.
- A later written contempt order included the judge’s account of the conduct; Greenberg appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary contempt judgment satisfied Rule 42(a)’s requirement that the judge certify he “saw or heard” the contemptuous conduct committed in the court’s actual presence.
2. Whether Greenberg’s conduct during closing argument constituted misbehavior that obstructed the administration of justice sufficient to support summary criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the contempt conviction and vacated the $500 fine.
- The court held the Rule 42(a) certification was inadequate to support summary criminal contempt.
- The court also held that, on this record, Greenberg’s conduct did not meet the high threshold for summary punishment as criminal contempt.

## Legal Principles

- Summary criminal contempt is an exceptional procedure; because it bypasses ordinary notice and hearing protections, Rule 42(a) requirements are strictly construed.
- For summary contempt, the judge must expressly certify that he personally “saw or heard” the specific conduct constituting contempt and that it occurred in the court’s actual presence.
- Criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 requires misbehavior that actually obstructs the administration of justice; vigorous advocacy, disagreement, or insistence on a ruling, without material obstruction, generally does not suffice.
- Conduct that may warrant admonishment or other sanctions does not automatically justify immediate, summary criminal punishment.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside a lawyer’s summary criminal contempt conviction because the trial judge did not provide the strict Rule 42(a) certification required for summary adjudication and because the courtroom exchange, as reflected in the record, did not amount to obstructive misbehavior warranting immediate criminal contempt under § 401.


In re Contempt of Greenberg, 849 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir. 1988)