For Your Data United States V. Cutler Representative Brief
August 25, 2020
Edit
United States v. Cutler representative brief summary
58 F.3d 825 (1995)
Defendant attorney appealed a determination from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, finding accused guilty of criminal contempt, inward violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 401(3), in addition to sentencing him to xc days' identify arrest in addition to iii years' probation, in addition to too suspending him from practicing police line inward the Eastern District of New York for 180 days, inward his violation of U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., Crim. R. 7.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed accused attorney's conviction for criminal contempt on the grounds that his constitutional challenge was collaterally barred because he failed to challenge the orders in addition to dominion inward trial past times appealing them. In addition, the prove amply supported his conviction.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
58 F.3d 825 (1995)
Defendant attorney appealed a determination from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, finding accused guilty of criminal contempt, inward violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 401(3), in addition to sentencing him to xc days' identify arrest in addition to iii years' probation, in addition to too suspending him from practicing police line inward the Eastern District of New York for 180 days, inward his violation of U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., Crim. R. 7.
CASE FACTS
The lower courtroom constitute accused attorney guilty of criminal contempt, inward violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 401(3) and sentenced him to xc days' identify arrest in addition to iii years' probation, in addition to too suspended him from practicing police line inward the Eastern District of New York for 180 days. Notwithstanding the lower court's pre-trial admonition in addition to orders to comply amongst U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.N.Y., Crim. R. 7, accused had spoken repeatedly in addition to heatedly to the media on the merits of the government's representative against his client.DISCUSSION
- On appeal, accused argued that:
- (1) the orders and Local Rule 7 were unconstitutional;
- (2) the evidence, nether the heightened measure applicable in U.S. Constitutional Amendment I cases, did non back upwards his contempt conviction; and
- (3) several aspects of his judgement were an abuse of discretion.
- The courtroom held that because accused could bring challenged the orders (and Local Rule 7) past times appealing them, or seeking a writ of mandamus or declaratory relief, his constitutional challenge was collaterally barred.
- Moreover, the prove amply supported his conviction. Finally, although aspects of his probation gave the courtroom pause, the courtroom would non disturb his sentence. The courtroom affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed accused attorney's conviction for criminal contempt on the grounds that his constitutional challenge was collaterally barred because he failed to challenge the orders in addition to dominion inward trial past times appealing them. In addition, the prove amply supported his conviction.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure