## Facts

- Christopher Simac was tried in Du Page County for driving with a revoked license and failure to yield after a March 20, 1990 traffic accident.
- At a December 11, 1990 bench trial, Simac’s lawyer, David Sotomayor, placed a law-office employee, David P. Armanentos, at counsel table in the customary defendant’s seat while Simac sat elsewhere in the courtroom.
- Sotomayor did not disclose the substitution to the court or the prosecution and did not seek permission.
- Sotomayor stated the defendant would not testify and did not have Armanentos sworn, avoiding disclosure that the person at counsel table was not the defendant.
- The State’s sole eyewitness, Officer Ronald LaMorte, identified Armanentos in court as the driver from the accident scene.
- The trial judge stated for the record that the officer had identified the defendant; Sotomayor did not correct the misimpression.
- After the officer left the courtroom, Sotomayor revealed the substitution by calling Armanentos to testify about the setup, and the court directed a not-guilty finding for Simac.
- The trial judge initiated contempt proceedings and found Sotomayor in direct criminal contempt, imposing a $500 fine.
- The appellate court affirmed the contempt finding but reduced the fine to $100; Sotomayor appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who secretly seats a stand-in at counsel table to induce an eyewitness misidentification, and remains silent as the court and witness proceed on that false premise, may be punished for direct criminal contempt.
2. Whether the conduct is “direct” contempt when it occurred in the courtroom but the judge did not fully appreciate the deception until later in the proceeding.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment.
- Sotomayor was properly found in direct criminal contempt for an intentional scheme to mislead the court and prosecution in the judge’s presence.
- The $100 fine, as reduced by the appellate court, was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Direct criminal contempt includes misconduct occurring in the presence of the court that obstructs the administration of justice and reflects willful disregard for the court’s authority.
- Conduct calculated to hinder or obstruct the court’s administration of justice, or to derogate from the court’s authority or dignity, may constitute contempt.
- The adversary system permits rigorous testing of the State’s proof, but it does not permit intentional misrepresentation to the court; counsel may not obtain an acquittal through deception or falsehood.
- A contempt may be treated as direct when the operative acts occur in open court and are observable by the judge, even if the judge recognizes their meaning after the events unfold.
- Creating and maintaining a false impression about a material matter in court that corrupts fact-finding and produces an outcome based on induced error supports a finding of obstruction for criminal contempt.

## Conclusion

The court held that a lawyer’s deliberate courtroom deception—seating a look-alike stand-in at counsel table and allowing a witness and the judge to proceed as if the stand-in were the defendant—obstructed justice in the court’s presence and therefore supported summary punishment for direct criminal contempt.


People v. Simac, 641 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. 1994)