## Facts

- John W. Yengo, Esq., represented one of ten defendants in a complex gambling-conspiracy trial with multiple counsel and difficult scheduling conditions.
- The trial judge repeatedly instructed counsel on the record that continuous attendance and punctuality were required, that absence needed prior approval, and that counsel should not take on other matters during the trial.
- On March 2, Yengo failed to appear and sent another attorney who was not prepared to proceed.
- The judge learned Yengo had gone to Bermuda and would not return until March 5; the trial continued in his absence.
- The judge ordered Yengo to appear on March 6 to explain the absence; Yengo stated he had been in Bermuda on business.
- Finding the explanation inadequate and concluding the absence violated explicit orders and disrupted the ongoing proceeding, the judge summarily adjudged Yengo guilty of direct criminal contempt and imposed a $500 fine.
- The Appellate Division reversed, classifying the conduct as indirect contempt requiring notice and a hearing under Rules 1:10-2 to -4.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney’s unexcused absence from an ongoing trial, after explicit attendance directives, constitutes direct criminal contempt “in the presence of the court” permitting summary disposition under N.J. Ct. R. 1:10-1.
2. Whether summary contempt procedures were improper because due process required the notice-and-hearing procedures applicable to indirect contempt.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s contempt judgment and $500 fine.
- The Court held that Yengo’s knowing failure to appear as ordered, occurring in the context of an ongoing proceeding and obstructing its progress, could be treated as direct criminal contempt in the presence of the court.
- The Court concluded summary disposition was appropriate given the disruption to a complex, multi-defendant trial and the need to maintain the court’s authority and orderly administration of justice.
- The Court emphasized the judge acted with restraint by continuing the trial, directing Yengo to appear, and hearing his explanation before adjudicating contempt.

## Legal Principles

- “Presence of the court” for direct contempt may include conduct that obstructs an ongoing proceeding when the judge has first-hand knowledge of the orders violated and of the disruption caused, even if the contempt is a failure to appear.
- Summary criminal contempt under N.J. Ct. R. 1:10-1 is limited to exceptional situations where immediate punishment is necessary to preserve order, maintain progress of the proceeding, or prevent public diminishment of the court’s authority.
- Indirect contempt procedures (notice and a hearing) are required when the judge must rely on third-party evidence to establish the contemptuous conduct; they are not required when the essential facts are within the judge’s personal knowledge and are established on the record.

## Conclusion

An attorney’s unexcused absence from an ongoing trial, after explicit on-the-record attendance orders, may constitute direct criminal contempt in the presence of the court and may be punished summarily when the judge personally knows the relevant facts and the absence disrupts the proceeding.


In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111, 417 A.2d 533 (N.J. 1980)