The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to hold attorney Marshall Tauber in criminal contempt and fine him $7,500. The case stemmed from a Zoom hearing where Tauber, representing a criminal defendant, allegedly used a derogatory term in reference to the judge after a bond ruling.
Background of the Case
The underlying case involved Tauber’s client, Montell Davontae Bennett, who faced multiple charges of uttering and publishing fraudulent checks. The events leading to Tauber’s contempt conviction began during a hearing regarding Bennett’s bond. Judge Yasmine I. Poles amended Bennett’s bond to $25,000 cash/surety for each case and ordered Bennett remanded to the Oakland County Jail.
Tauber argued that Bennett’s additional charges were not committed while he was released on bond. However, the judge denied the motion. After the judge’s ruling, the court clerk announced the date for the following week, the transcript reflects that Tauber stated, “f c*.” This statement was made during the Zoom hearing.
The Contempt Finding
Following the incident, Judge Poles issued an order to show cause, requiring Tauber to appear in court and explain why he should not be held in contempt. Tauber, represented by counsel, argued that he did not believe the Zoom hearing was still active when he made the comment. He also sent an email of apology to the judge. However, the judge found Tauber in direct criminal contempt, citing the statement as a willful disregard for the court’s authority.
Due Process Arguments and the Court’s Ruling
Tauber appealed the contempt conviction, claiming he was deprived of due process. He argued that he should have been granted an adjournment to review the video recording and that the court should have treated the contempt as indirect, requiring a full hearing before a different judge.
The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. It noted that Tauber’s counsel requested to see the video but did not ask for an adjournment. Furthermore, the court found that Tauber did not raise due process challenges in the trial court. The appellate court applied the plain error standard, which requires a showing that an error occurred, that it was obvious, and that it affected substantial rights. The Court of Appeals found that Tauber failed to demonstrate plain error, thus entitling him to no appellate relief.
The court cited the Michigan Compiled Laws, specifically MCL 600.1701, which grants courts the power to punish individuals for misconduct, including “disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence.” The court determined that Tauber’s conduct during the Zoom hearing satisfied this requirement, as the statement was made in the presence of the court and was recorded.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Tauber also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the contempt conviction. He argued that his actions were not “willful” because he spoke out of frustration and did not intend for anyone to hear his statement.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. It explained that “willful” in the context of criminal contempt refers to a statement that impairs the court’s authority or impedes its functioning. The court noted that Tauber made the comment during a Zoom hearing and that demeaning the trial court, particularly in front of a client, erodes public confidence in the judicial system.
The court further dismissed Tauber’s argument that technical difficulties prevented his statement from occurring in the court’s immediate view, noting his failure to produce the video recording to support this claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the criminal contempt conviction.
The Significance of the Ruling
The Court of Appeals’ decision underscores the importance of maintaining decorum and respect for the court, even in virtual settings. The ruling clarifies that inappropriate behavior during a Zoom hearing can constitute contempt of court, particularly when it occurs in the presence of the judge and is recorded. This case serves as a reminder to attorneys and all participants in court proceedings to uphold the standards of professionalism and civility, regardless of the format of the hearing.