McCormick v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
635 A.2d 347 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Summary criminal contempt proceedings under Rule 42(a) are reserved for exceptional circumstances where immediate action is necessary to suppress a direct threat to the court's orderly procedure. When the alleged contemptuous conduct does not create an immediate disruption, is ambiguous, or involves a factual dispute, due process requires a non-summary proceeding with notice and a full opportunity to be heard.

Facts:

Xavier McCormick attended the sentencing hearing for his friend or relative, Damanual Quarles, before Judge Walton.
After the judge announced the sentence, McCormick became visibly upset and began leaving the courtroom.
As he departed, McCormick flung open the courtroom doors, turned back toward the bench, and made a gesture.
Judge Walton perceived the gesture as McCormick angrily pointing his finger at him.
McCormick maintained that he had only waved his hand, not pointed.
McCormick's friends then pulled him out of the courtroom.
At the judge's direction, a deputy U.S. Marshal returned McCormick to the courtroom for a contempt hearing.

Procedural Posture:

In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Judge Walton summarily convicted Xavier McCormick of criminal contempt under Super.Ct.Crim.R. 42(a).
The trial court judge sentenced McCormick to 90 days in jail.
McCormick (appellant) appealed the conviction and sentence to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a judge violate an individual's due process rights by using a summary criminal contempt proceeding under Super.Ct.Crim.R. 42(a) when the alleged contemptuous act was an ambiguous gesture made after the primary court proceeding had concluded, there was a factual dispute as to the nature of the gesture, and the individual was denied an opportunity to speak in his own defense?

Opinions:

Majority - Ferren, Associate Judge

Yes, the judge violated McCormick's due process rights. A summary contempt conviction is improper when it is not necessary to immediately restore order, when the underlying facts are disputed, and when the accused is denied basic procedural protections. First, the proceeding violated due process because the judge failed to inform McCormick that he was being charged with criminal contempt and expressly denied his request to speak in his own defense, which is a fundamental right even in summary proceedings as established in Taylor v. Hayes. Second, summary disposition under Rule 42(a) was inappropriate because it is reserved for 'exceptional circumstances' requiring immediate action to prevent the 'demoralization of the court's authority,' as per Cooke v. United States. Here, the sentencing was over and McCormick had already left; there was no ongoing disruption to suppress. Third, there was a factual dispute—the judge saw a 'point' while McCormick claimed it was a 'wave'—which required a full hearing under Rule 42(b) where evidence and witnesses could be presented. Finally, the gesture itself was ambiguous and not an overt threat or 'flagrant defiance' justifying summary action.

Analysis:

This decision significantly narrows the scope of the summary contempt power, reinforcing it as a tool of last resort for immediate, ongoing courtroom disruptions. It establishes that a judge's perception of disrespect, especially after a proceeding has ended, is insufficient to bypass the due process requirements of notice and a hearing. The ruling protects individuals from the inherent conflict of interest where a judge acts as witness, prosecutor, and arbiter, particularly when the facts of the alleged contempt are in dispute or the conduct is ambiguous. This precedent requires trial courts to use the more formal Rule 42(b) process in all but the most extreme cases of open, flagrant defiance that threaten the imminent administration of justice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McCormick v. United States (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"