Order In The Court, Or Then Again Maybe Not

By Walter C. Jones
Morris News Service

(2/26/08) Judges who become peeved by lawyers' remarks and facial expressions may have to grit their teeth and bear a little more than they used to under a Georgia Supreme Court decision released Monday.

Ruling in favor of an attorney ordered to jail for showing disrespect to a judge during a juvenile trial in Brunswick, the seven justices rewrote legal precedent dating back to 1985. They concluded the attorney, Sherri Jefferson, deserves a new hearing under an updated view of what constitutes contempt of court.

Jefferson was an assistant public defender in 2005 representing a child charged with aggravated battery for supplying the gun used in a shooting and for prodding the shooter to act. After finding the child delinquent, the judge cited Jefferson for contempt on eight instances, from facial expressions and tone of voice to specific statements.

Six months later, on Feb. 14, 2006, a different judge held Jefferson's contempt hearing and found her at fault for two of the eight allegations. She wound up sentenced to jail for 30 days and owing a $500 fine.

According to the Supreme Court, the second judge concluded "the statements impugned, disparaged, and attacked the impartiality of the court and thereby undermined its authority, respect, and dignity."

Jefferson did not respond to requests for comments.

She has left her position as a public defender, and the State Bar of Georgia lists her with the African American Juvenile Justice Project in Jonesboro, Ga.

Supreme Court Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein, writing for the court's majority, said the old standard that Georgia judges had been given by the court to consider contempt had resulted in too many inconsistent decisions.

"Thus, because vigorous advocacy is essential not only to the preservation of individual rights but also to the integrity of the judicial system whose truthseeking process is sought to be protected through the exercise of the contempt power, courts must be judicious in their approach to adjudicating contempt," Hunstein wrote. "In considering whether to hold an attorney in contempt, the court should always assess whether there are other correctives sufficient to address the problematic conduct in question."

Still, contempt cases are rare, according to Stephen Jolly, Brunswick district attorney.

No one prosecuted Jefferson, though Jolly participated in the appeals, arguing against her. But he said the old standard was fuzzy from his point of view.

"We were a little frustrated ourselves in the vagueness of the contempt standard," he said, adding that most lawyers are well-behaved but do appreciate knowing what the boundaries are as they are standing up for their case.