The named appellant in this case is Bautista Ramirez, who was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison following a jury trial in which the State was seeking the death penalty. This appeal, however, stems from the trial court’s finding that Thomas West, one of Ramirez’s attorneys, was in criminal contempt of court for violating an order setting forth certain restrictions on counsel’s communication with the press during the course of Ramirez’s trial. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the finding of contempt. 1. West’s alleged contumacious conduct consisted of a telephone call to a radio station during which West discussed Ramirez’s case with the host of the radio show. At the time of the call, Ramirez’s trial had been proceeding for several weeks, and West made the call in the morning before the beginning of that day’s proceedings. The prosecutor informed the trial court of the call, and the trial court apparently heard a portion of the call live. Before trial began that morning, the trial court informed West that, after the close of trial that day, the court would address whether West had violated the court’s restrictive order and whether he was in contempt of court if he had done so. Once the jury had departed that afternoon, the court held a hearing, following which the court found West in criminal contempt and fined him $500.00.
2. The procedures that a trial court must follow to hold a person in contempt depend upon whether the acts alleged to constitute the contempt are committed in the court’s presence direct contempt or are committed out of the court’s presence indirect contempt.1 If the contempt is direct, a trial court has the power, “after affording the contemnor an opportunity to speak in his or her own behalf, to announce punishment summarily and without further notice or hearing.”2 This summary power is authorized “where contumacious conduct threatens a court’s immediate ability to conduct its proceedings, such as where a witness refuses to testify, or a party disrupts the court.”3 “Direct contempts in the presence of the court traditionally have been subject to summary adjudication, ‘to maintain order in the courtroom and the integrity of the trial process in the face of an “actual obstruction of justice.”‘ “4 In direct contempt proceedings, “in light of the court’s substantial interest in rapidly coercing compliance and restoring order, and because the contempt’s occurrence before the court reduces the need for extensive factfinding and the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation, summary proceedings have been tolerated.”5
