United States v. Cutler
58 F.3d 825 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the collateral bar doctrine, a party who violates a court order cannot then challenge the constitutionality of that order in a subsequent contempt proceeding unless they first made a good faith effort to have the order reviewed by an appellate court.
Facts:
- John Gotti was indicted on federal racketeering charges, and his attorney, Bruce Cutler, immediately began an extensive media campaign, proclaiming Gotti's innocence and attacking the prosecution.
- The district court judge, I. Leo Glasser, admonished Cutler on December 20, 1990, to comply with Local Criminal Rule 7, which restricts extrajudicial statements that are reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial.
- Immediately following the court's admonition, Cutler held a press conference outside the courthouse where he mocked the government's witnesses as 'bums'.
- On January 9, 1991, Judge Glasser again explicitly ordered both the prosecution and defense to comply with Local Rule 7.
- Cutler continued his media campaign, giving interviews to major newspapers and appearing on national television programs like '60 Minutes' and 'Prime Time Live' to defend Gotti and criticize the government.
- On July 22, 1991, Judge Glasser issued a third direct order for counsel to follow Local Rule 7, referring to it as 'a kind of gag order'.
- Shortly after being disqualified from representing Gotti, and about a month before the trial, Cutler appeared on a one-hour live television show, '9 Broadcast Plaza', where he praised Gotti's character and described the government's evidence as 'phony'.
Procedural Posture:
- John Gotti was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The district court judge issued a series of orders directing Gotti's attorney, Bruce Cutler, to comply with a local rule limiting out-of-court statements to the media.
- After Cutler repeatedly violated these orders, the district court issued an order to show cause why Cutler should not be held in criminal contempt.
- The original judge recused himself, and the contempt matter was tried before another judge in the same district court.
- Cutler moved to dismiss the contempt charges, arguing the underlying orders and local rule were unconstitutional; the district court denied the motion.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Cutler guilty of criminal contempt for willfully violating the court's specific and definite orders.
- The district court sentenced Cutler to three years' probation, with conditions of ninety days' house arrest and a 180-day suspension from practicing in the Eastern District.
- Cutler (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the United States (appellee) as the opposing party.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a party challenge the validity of a court's orders in a criminal contempt proceeding for violating those orders, when the party made no attempt to seek modification, appeal, or other judicial review of the orders before violating them?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, Circuit Judge
No. A party may not challenge a district court’s order by violating it; the collateral bar doctrine requires a party to seek to vacate, modify, or appeal an order before disobeying it. Cutler had several avenues to challenge the orders he believed were unconstitutional, including direct appeal, a writ of mandamus, or a declaratory judgment action. He pursued none of these remedies. The exception for 'transparently invalid' orders is unavailable because Cutler made no good faith effort to seek emergency relief from an appellate court. Therefore, he is collaterally barred from attacking the validity of the orders in his contempt proceeding. Furthermore, the evidence was sufficient for a conviction: the orders were reasonably specific, Cutler's statements were reasonably likely to prejudice the Gotti trial, and his violation of the orders was willful, as evidenced by his own admission that he used the media to influence potential jurors.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the collateral bar doctrine as a crucial element of judicial authority, compelling litigants and their attorneys to respect court orders even if they believe them to be invalid. It serves as a significant caution to defense attorneys in high-profile cases against using the media to try their cases in the court of public opinion. The ruling clarifies that the proper course of action is to challenge a 'gag order' through established legal channels, not through deliberate defiance, thereby preserving the hierarchy and integrity of the judicial process over an attorney's perceived duties of zealous advocacy.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Cutler