## Facts

- During General Manuel Noriega’s federal criminal prosecution, he was detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Miami, where prison officials recorded inmate telephone calls, including calls between Noriega and his attorneys.
- CNN obtained recordings that included attorney–client conversations and played at least one such recording for Noriega’s lead counsel, revealing discussions about trial matters, including potential government witnesses.
- On November 7, 1990, Noriega sought emergency relief to stop CNN from airing the recordings.
- The district court issued temporary restraining orders and related orders prohibiting CNN from broadcasting or otherwise publishing the attorney–client recordings pending further judicial review.
- While those orders remained in effect, CNN broadcast portions of the recordings on November 9 and 10, 1990, while also seeking emergency appellate relief.
- The United States, through a specially appointed prosecutor, filed an Information under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) charging CNN with criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) for willfully violating the court’s orders.
- After a non-jury trial in September 1994, the district court issued a post-trial opinion determining CNN’s contempt liability.

## Issues

1. Whether CNN violated clear and specific court orders prohibiting publication of Noriega’s attorney–client recordings with knowledge of the orders and willfulness, establishing criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).
2. Whether CNN’s First Amendment objections, pursuit of appellate relief, or reliance on counsel negated willfulness or otherwise provided a defense to criminal contempt.

## Decision

- The court found the restraining orders clear, specific, and applicable to the broadcasts at issue.
- The court found CNN had actual notice of the orders and nevertheless chose to broadcast the prohibited material while the orders remained in force.
- The court held CNN knowingly and willfully violated the orders and was guilty of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).
- The court rejected CNN’s contention that constitutional objections and efforts to obtain appellate review justified disobedience of the orders.
- The court held reliance on counsel did not excuse contempt where conduct plainly violated a known court order.
- The court treated CNN as responsible for the contemptuous conduct of its employees and agents who participated in the decision to air the recordings.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of (1) a clear and unambiguous court order, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the order, and (3) a willful violation.
- Persons bound by an injunction or restraining order issued by a court with jurisdiction must comply unless and until the order is modified or reversed; perceived unconstitutionality does not authorize unilateral noncompliance.
- First Amendment interests do not immunize a media organization from criminal contempt for knowingly violating a valid, specific court order directed to protecting attorney–client privilege and the integrity of an ongoing criminal proceeding.
- Advice of counsel is not a categorical defense to criminal contempt when the defendant knowingly engages in conduct clearly prohibited by a court order.
- A corporation may be held in criminal contempt based on the actions of its employees and agents taken within the scope of their roles and with corporate notice of the governing order.

## Conclusion

The district court held CNN criminally liable for contempt because it broadcast attorney–client recordings in direct violation of clear restraining orders, concluding that constitutional objections and pending appellate challenges did not permit self-help disobedience of a court order.


United States v. Cable News Network, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 1549 (S.D. Fla. 1994)