United States v. Seefried

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HUNTER SEEFRIED, Case No. 21-cr-287 (TNM)
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Did the electoral certification on January 6, 2021 involve the “administration of justice”?
The answer determines whether significant sentencing enhancements may apply to convictions
under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) for obstruction of an official proceeding. In the Court’s view, the
answer is no. Text, context, and precedent show that the “administration of justice” most
naturally refers to a judicial or related proceeding that determines rights or obligations. The
electoral certification was not such a proceeding.
I.
This Court found Hunter Seefried guilty of obstructing an official proceeding—the
electoral certification—under § 1512(c), along with four other counts. See Presentence
Investigation Report (PSR) ¶ 9; see also Tr. of Bench Trial Verdict, ECF No. 109. Hunter
Seefried was a 22-year-old forklift technician when he came to Washington on January 6. See
PSR ¶ 76; see also Def.’s Mem. in Aid of Sentencing at 15, ECF No. 114. He watched as other
protestors used a police riot shield and a wooden beam to shatter the Capitol’s large windows.
See PSR ¶ 19. He then cleared glass from a window and clambered through it, followed by other
protestors. See id. ¶¶ 19–20. Once inside the Capitol building, Seefried joined other protestors
in confronting U.S. Capitol police and even chasing an officer through the Senate corridors. See
1
id. ¶ 21. Seefried’s fellow rioters searched for Members of Congress and the location of the
certification proceeding. See id. ¶ 22.
II.
Section 1512(c)(2) provides that “whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes
any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” faces a fine or up to 20 years imprisonment. 18
U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The Government has charged many defendants in the January 6 cases with
violating this statute. See, e.g., United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, No. 21-cr-37, Superseding
Indictment, ECF No. 59; United States v. Reffitt, No. 21-cr-32, Second Superseding Indictment,
ECF No. 34; United States v. Rubenacker, No. 21-cr-193, Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 33.
The “official proceeding” at issue in these cases is the certification of electoral votes.
During this proceeding, the “certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral
votes . . . [are] opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States.” 3
U.S.C. § 15. Then, tellers “make a list of the votes as they [] appear” and “the result . . . [is]
delivered to the President of the Senate,” who announces the outcome of the election. Id.Finally, a list of the votes is entered in the House and Senate journals. See id. This Court has
held—along with most other judges in this district—that the certification qualifies as an “official
proceeding” under § 1512(c). See, e.g., United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, 2022 WL 4300000, at
*1 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2022).
But does the electoral certification also involve the “administration of justice”? That is a
thornier question. For defendants convicted under § 1512(c), the Government has argued that
sentencing enhancements for obstructing or interfering with “the administration of justice”
should apply. U.S.S.G. §§ 2J1.2(b)(1)(B), (b)(2). One provision triggers an eight-level
enhancement “[i]f the offense involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a
2
person, or property damage, in order to obstruct the administration of justice.” Id.
§ 2J1.2(b)(1)(B). And another prompts a three-level enhancement “[i]f the offense resulted in
substantial interference with the administration of justice.” Id. § 2J1.2(b)(2).
For Seefried, this is not an academic question. If these enhancements apply, his
sentencing guideline level is 25, with a recommended sentence of 57–71 months; if they do not,
his level is 14, with a recommended sentence of 15–21 months. The Court finds that the
enhancements in §§ 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) do not apply because the electoral certification
does not involve the “administration of justice.”
III.
In interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines, the Court applies the ordinary tools of statutory
interpretation and looks to the plain meaning of its terms. Many circuits agree. See, e.g., United
States v. Savin, 349 F.3d 27, 35–36 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Peterson, 629 F.3d 432, 434
(4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Bustillos-Pena, 612 F.3d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 2010); United States
v. Bahhur, 200 F.3d 917, 927 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Smith, 989 F.3d 575, 586 (7th Cir.
2021); United States v. Collins, 754 F.3d 626, 630 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Kirilyuk, 29
F.4th 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2022).
To discern the text’s plain meaning, courts look to dictionary definitions and analyze the
word or phrase in context. See, e.g., Kaufman v. Nielsen, 896 F.3d 475, 485–87 (D.C. Cir.
2018). The relevant context for a sentencing guideline may include the commentary. See, e.g.,
Kirilyuk, 29 F.4th at 1137–39. Finally, the Court looks to precedent to analyze how other courts
have interpreted this phrase or similar phrases.
A.
First, text. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the phrase “administration of justice” as
3
“[t]he maintenance of right within a political community by means of the physical force of the
state” and “the state’s application of the sanction of force to the rule of right.” Administration of
Justice, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Similarly, “due administration of justice” is
defined as “[t]he proper functioning and integrity of a court or other tribunal and the proceedings
before it in accordance with the rights guaranteed to the parties.” Id. Although the Guideline
only contains the phrase “administration of justice,” not “due administration of justice,” the
Government has given the Court no reason to believe these are not closely associated phrases.
These definitions suggest that the “administration of justice” involves a judicial or quasi-judicial
tribunal that applies the force of the state to determine legal rights.
The certification does not share the characteristics of these definitions. The best evidence
for what actually occurs during the certification is the statute proscribing its procedures. See 3
U.S.C. § 15. During the proceeding, “certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the
electoral votes . . . [are] opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the
States.” Id. Then, tellers “make a list of the votes as they . . . appear” and deliver the result to
the President of the Senate after Members resolve any objections. Id. Finally, the votes are
entered in the House and Senate journals. See id.The certification is thus largely a ceremonial proceeding where Members and staff open,
read, list, and announce the electoral votes. See id. It takes place within the deliberative branch
of government—Congress—not the branches that typically exercise judgment (the judiciary), or
force (the executive). See generally The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). Congress
applies no “physical force” or “sanction of force” during the certification. And the proceeding
involves no possibility of punishment by the state, as a judicial, investigatory, or enforcement
proceeding might to “maint[ain] [] right within a political community.” Nor does the
4
certification involve the “proper functioning and integrity of a court or other tribunal . . . in
accordance with the rights guaranteed to the parties.” These definitions evoke traditional judicial
or quasi-judicial bodies that decide or maintain the legal rights of the parties before them. In
contrast, the certification confirms, announces, and officially records whom the people have
chosen to be President and Vice President. See 3 U.S.C. § 15. In other words, it commemorates
and completes the peaceful transfer of executive authority.
Consider another relevant definition. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “obstructing the
administration of justice” and “interfering with the administration of justice” as “[t]he skewing
of the disposition of legal proceedings, as by fabricating or destroying evidence, witness-
tampering, or threatening or intimidating a judge.” Perverting the Course of Justice, Black’s
Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (cross-referencing these phrases). This definition is probative
because § 2J1.2 uses the terms “obstruct” and “interference” when discussing what a defendant
might impermissibly do to the “administration of justice.”
This definition further corroborates that the “administration of justice” involves
something like a legal proceeding, such as a trial or grand jury hearing. Obstruction or
interference with such a proceeding occurs through action that could “skew . . . the disposition.”
The definition suggests that possible actions include falsifying or destroying evidence, tampering
with witnesses, or threatening a judge. The certification does not resemble a trial or similar
judicial proceeding where evidence could be falsified or destroyed, witnesses could be tampered
with, or a judge could be intimidated so as to interfere with the disposition of parties’ legal
rights.
Indeed, the Government could have charged Seefried with violating § 1503, a different
provision in the same statute that defines “obstruction of justice” as an act that “corruptly or by
5
threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes,
or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1503 (emphasis added). But to the Court’s knowledge, none of the January 6 defendants have
been charged under § 1503. Though the Court hesitates to derive meaning from exercises of
prosecutorial discretion, the existence of similar language elsewhere with a clear relationship to
the enhancements in § 2J1.2 is curious. The official proceeding statute under which this Court
convicted Seefried contains no such language. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
To be sure, some courts have recently interpreted the “administration of justice” in
§ 2J1.2 more broadly. In United States v. Miller, another judge in this district defined the
individual words in the phrase by looking to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. See
21-cr-75, Tr. at 16 (May 23, 2022), ECF No. 73. The court explained that “administration in this
sense means to mete out, and justice means fair treatment.” Id. The court reasoned that these
definitions are broad enough to encompass the certification because Congress was “adjudicating
in some . . . limited sense, subject to very substantial constraints, the results of the election.” Id.
But this Court hesitates to slice and dice a term of art. “Adhering to the fair meaning of
the text (the textualist’s touchstone) does not limit one to the hyperliteral meaning of each word
in the text . . . . The full body of a text contains implications that can alter the literal meaning of
individual words.” Antonin Scalia & Brian A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts 356 (2012) (Scalia & Garner); see also Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1825
(2020) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“[C]ourts must adhere to the ordinary meaning of phrases,
not just the meaning of the words in a phrase.”); William Eskridge, Interpreting Law 62 (2016)
(noting that judges should follow ordinary meaning “when two words combine to produce a
meaning that is not the mechanical composition of the two words separately”).
6
And even if segmenting the terms of the phrase were appropriate, another legal dictionary
supports this Court’s reading. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “administration” as the
“execution of a law by putting it in effect, applying it to the affairs of men.” Administration,
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969). And it defines “justice” as “[t]hat end which ought
to be reached in a case by the regular administration of the principles of law involved as applied
to the facts.” Justice, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969). Even separating the words
supports the reading that the “administration of justice,” as a legal term of art, refers to state
action vis-à-vis legal rights.
In United States v. Rubenacker, another judge in this district interpreted the
administration of justice broadly to apply § 2J1.2’s enhancements to a January 6 defendant
convicted under § 1512(c). See United States v. Rubenacker, 21-cr-193, Tr. at 71–72 (May 26,
2022), ECF No. 70. In Rubenacker, the court reasoned that the Black’s Law Dictionary
definition of “administration of justice” suggests “that the state would use mechanisms, such as
the police or prosecutors, to force compliance with or maintain a right; that is not necessarily tied
to a court or a particular tribunal.” Id. at 72. The court explained that “the physical force of the
state” was present during the certification “in the form of law enforcement officers located in and
around the Capitol to secure the proceedings.” Id. at 75. And it suggested that legislators’
statutory right to object during the certification “can be analogized to evidentiary objections.”
Id. at 66.
This Court is unconvinced. The fact that law enforcement is present at an official
proceeding—which will often be the case—surely cannot mean that the administration of justice
is occurring. Consider a presidential inauguration. Police and Secret Service are present at this
official proceeding to protect the incoming President and other distinguished attendees. But no
7
one would say that the inauguration involves the “administration of justice”; it is a ceremonial
proceeding that formally installs the Nation’s new leader.
The definitions of the “administration of justice” discussed above suggest that a judicial
or quasi-judicial body must itself be applying the force of the state to decide legal rights, not that
force need merely be present. The Rubenacker court’s other argument—that legislators have the
right to object to the certification—also does not mean that the certification involves the
administration of justice. Simply because Members may debate whether a certified vote is
proper, and rules exist for resolving objections, does not mean they are administering justice.
Indeed, if this were the case, it is hard to imagine a congressional proceeding that would not
qualify, given that the legislative process often involves these same characteristics.
Admittedly, the dictionary definitions here are a bit unwieldy. Dictionary definitions are
valuable because they are evidence of how ordinary speakers of language understand words and
how legal interpreters understand terms of art. But dictionaries do not end the inquiry. This is so
because not all “meanings appropriate to particular contexts are to be found in the dictionary.”
Scalia & Garner at 70.
A reader therefore must look to context to determine “which of several possible senses a
word or phrase bears.” Id.; accord Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1827 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“If
the usual evidence indicates that a statutory phrase bears an ordinary meaning different from the
literal strung-together definitions of the individual words in the phrase, we may not ignore or
gloss over that discrepancy. Legislation cannot sensibly be interpreted by stringing together
dictionary synonyms of each word.” (cleaned up)); see also id. at 1766 (Alito, J., dissenting)
(“[T]he meaning of language depends on the way a linguistic community uses words and phrases
in context.”). So the Court looks to both the context in which the “administration of justice”
8
most often appears and the immediate context found in the commentary to § 2J1.2.
B.
The Court undertakes two analyses to understand how the “administration of justice” is
properly understood in context. The first uses a methodology called “corpus linguistics” to
assess the customary usage of the phrase at the time the Sentencing Commission crafted the
Guidelines. The second looks to § 2J1.2’s commentary, which the Court finds helpful but not
dispositive.
1.
Although dictionaries provide a useful starting point, “[b]ecause common words typically
have more than one meaning, you must use the context in which a given word appears to
determine its aptest, most likely sense.” Scalia & Garner at 418; see generally Stephen C.
Mouritsen, The Dictionary is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based
Approach to Plain Meaning, 2010 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1915 (2010) (describing the shortcomings of
collecting dictionary definitions and advocating for a broader, corpus-based approach to
linguistic meaning). To understand what meaning the Guideline most naturally evokes, the
Court also looks to customary usage at the time.
Courts may assess the customary usage of a phrase by searching relevant databases of
naturally occurring language. This method is known as corpus linguistics. “Corpus linguistics is
an empirical approach to the study of language that uses large, electronic databases” of language
gathered from sources. Thomas R. Lee & Stephen C. Mouritsen, Judging Ordinary Meaning,
127 Yale L. J. 788, 828 (2018); see also Lawrence B. Solum, Triangulating Public Meaning:
Corpus Linguistics, Immersion, and the Constitutional Record, 2017 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1621,
1643–49 (2017) (explaining why the method helps clarify linguistic meaning).
9
Other courts have deployed corpus-based approaches to textual meaning. For example,
Justice Breyer, writing for the Court, adopted a corpus-based approach to illuminate the meaning
of the phrase “carries a firearm.” See Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 128–31 (1998)
(recounting the phrase in context from dictionaries, literature, and newspaper articles found in
computerized databases). Other courts have also conducted corpus-based analyses using
publicly available databases. See, e.g., Wilson v. Safelite Grp., Inc., 930 F.3d 429, 439 (6th Cir.
2019) (Thapar, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); United States v. Rice, 36
F.4th 578, 583 n.6 (4th Cir. 2022); Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. Biden, No. 8:21-cv-1693,
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 1134138, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2022).
Because various publicly-available databases of language exist, see, e.g.,
https://www.english-corpora.org/; lncl8.lawcorpus.byu.edu, courts must choose a corpus
carefully. The database searched should include texts from the relevant linguistic community
that would read and understand the text at issue. Cf. Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the
Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 536 (1947) (explaining that texts “addressed to
specialists, [] must be read by judges with the minds of the specialists”); James A. Heilpern,
Dialects of Art: A Corpus-Based Approach to Technical Terms, 58 Jurimetrics J. 377, 389–97
(2018) (explaining the promise of a corpus-based approach for terms of art).
The primary linguistic community using and understanding the Sentencing Guidelines is
an informed legal audience—most notably, lawyers and judges. Unlike most statutes, which are
at least theoretically intended to be read and understood by citizens, the Guidelines are a
practitioner’s guide to federal sentencing. The Court therefore focused on the Corpus of
10
Caselaw Access Project (COCAP), which compiles the text of federal and state court decisions.
See https://lncl8.lawcorpus.byu.edu/. 1
But just in case one thinks the Guidelines should be read like criminal statutes—directed
to the general public—the Court also searched the Corpus of Historical American English
(COHA), which collects sources across genres, including fiction, magazines, newspapers, and
academic articles. Cf. Rice, 36 F.4th at 583 n.6 (looking to a database collecting “documents an
ordinary speaker of English would interact with regularly” when interpreting a criminal statute).
At the very least, it would be notable if these corpora produced wildly different results. As it
turns out, they did not.
The Court queried the COCAP for the years 1977–1987. This period represents the
decade before and including the year in which the Commission promulgated § 2J1.2. See
U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 (effective Nov. 1, 1987). Cf. Safelite, 930 F.3d at 444 (Thapar, J., concurring in
part and concurring in the judgment) (looking to a ten-year period to generate a sample of written
text around the time Congress first passed the relevant language). This search returned 14,118
hits, or “concordance lines.” Given such a large universe, the Court reviewed a random sample
of 375 concordance lines containing the phrase “administration of justice” to see what sorts of
official proceedings were discussed. This sample size produces a 95% confidence interval. A
random sample can be generated through the database itself by filtering for a specific number of
results.
The most frequent usage of the “administration of justice”—about 65% of the total hits—
corresponds with the sense described above: a judicial proceeding deciding legal rights. The
1
The Court has collected and coded the hits from the databases it queried into a spreadsheet
appended as Attachment A.
11
phrase appeared in conjunction with witness tampering, contempt of court, various evidentiary
privileges, the effect of jury instructions on court proceedings, and the conduct of juries. The
phrase also accompanies issues of judicial management, including delays in court proceedings,
repeat litigants, and even courtroom dress code. Other hits dealt with media access to judicial
proceedings. Finally, some hits reflected more general concerns about retroactivity and the
“fair,” “proper,” “effective,” or “thorough” administration of justice by courts.
The next most common context in which the “administration of justice” appeared—
around 25% of hits—involved disciplining judges or lawyers for conduct that interfered with
judicial proceedings. Some hits referenced violations of various ethical rules, contempt of court,
recusal, disqualification of counsel, and perjury when a lawyer testified before a grand jury.
Again, the customary usage of the phrase was closely linked with judicial proceedings, or an
actor who is intimately involved with the judicial process.
Another category of note—about 4% of hits—involved law enforcement activities. Some
hits referenced conduct such as resisting arrest. Others discussed the need for anonymous
informants to promote cooperation with law enforcement, the rationale for the exclusionary rule,
and prosecutorial discretion. One discussed setting standards for roadside intoxication tests.
These hits differed from those described above in that they did not always involve a formal
proceeding or a judicial body. But they all contemplate the state’s application of force or the
government’s role in investigating and prosecuting crimes. 2
2
The Court identified a few other categories, all of which had only a few hits. These referred to
grand juries, bar associations, and two committees (one Congressional and the other Presidential)
that have the phrase “administration of justice” in their title. The Court also coded a few entries
as “unclear” if the context in the concordance line did not provide enough information to
categorize the entry.
12
In contrast, the least common usage of “administration of justice” was as a broad term
referring to government function generally. The Court identified three such entries out of the
375 it coded. One dealt with a public utility commission that discussed the administration of
justice in broad terms. Another noted that local commissioners’ power to issue licenses involves
the administration of justice. And another suggested that Texas counties are involved in the
administration of justice. No entries discussed a Congressional proceeding.
This is not to say that because the administration of justice most often appeared in the
context of a judicial proceeding means that it takes on that meaning in all contexts. And of
course, the certification of electoral votes could involve the administration of justice, despite not
appearing in this sample. But the vast majority of examples in the sample shared certain
hallmarks such as action disruptive of, or prejudicial to, a court proceeding; discipline of judges
and lawyers; and conduct that would disrupt or aid law enforcement investigations. The
certification does not share these characteristics.
Even if the proper linguistic community is not lawyers and judges, a review of a broader
set of sources does nothing to undermine the Court’s findings. Querying COHA for the same
time period returned 12 results for “administration of justice.” Though the Court hesitates to
draw conclusions from such a small sample size—four of which are from the same book—these
results largely support the Court’s prior interpretation. The phrase most often appeared in the
context of judicial decision-making, courts generally, bar associations, or law enforcement. Two
concordance lines could be interpreted as referring to government generally, and two were
unclear. These limited exceptions seem to be outliers.
In short, there is essentially no evidence that either judges, lawyers, or speakers more
generally used the term “administration of justice” to refer to legislative proceedings like the
13
certification of the electoral count. Instead, both professional and lay speakers overwhelmingly
used this term to reference judicial proceedings or activities closely related to them. To be sure,
corpus linguistics is but one tool in the interpretative toolbox. But “[i]ts foremost value may
come in those difficult cases where . . . dictionaries diverge. In those cases, corpus linguistics
can serve as a cross-check on established methods of interpretation (and vice versa).” Wilson,
930 F.3d at 440 (Thapar, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Even though
dictionaries do not necessarily diverge here, corpus linguistics provide further evidence that the
Government is stretching the Guideline beyond its natural meaning.
2.
The Government offers a different bit of context. It argues that the commentary to
§ 2J1.2 defines the administration of justice broadly enough to encompass the certification. See
Gov’t Mem. in Aid of Sentencing (Gov’t Mem.) at 29.
To begin, query whether the commentary to a sentencing guideline is authoritative. See,
e.g., United States v. Winstead, 890 F.3d 1082, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (noting disagreement over
this issue). The Supreme Court held in Stinson v. United States that the commentary should “be
treated as an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rule.” 508 U.S. 36, 44–45 (1993)
(citing Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)). The Court explained
that commentary which “interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the
Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that
guideline.” Id. at 38.
Yet other circuits have explained that Stinson should be applied with care. This is so
because it rests on Seminole Rock (later called Auer) deference, which the Supreme Court
recently clarified. See generally Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019). When Stinson was
14
decided, courts were far more willing to defer to agency interpretations of text. After Kisor, they
must be more careful to reduce ambiguity using the standard tools of statutory interpretation
before deferring. See 139 S. Ct. at 2414. “Congress has delegated substantial responsibility to
the Sentencing Commission, but, as the Supreme Court emphasized in Kisor, the interpretation
of [the Guidelines] ultimately ‘remains in the hands of the courts.’” United States v. Nasir, 17
F.4th 459, 472 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2420); see also United
States v. Riccardi, 989 F.3d 476, 485 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Kisor must awake us from our slumber of
reflexive deference to the commentary” (cleaned up)).
And the D.C. Circuit has suggested that courts should eschew deference to the
Commission where the commentary expands the meaning of the text of the Guidelines
themselves. See Winstead, 890 F.3d at 1092 (“[S]urely Seminole Rock deference does not extend
so far as to allow [the Commission] to invoke its general interpretive authority via commentary
. . . to impose such a massive impact on a defendant with no grounding in the guidelines
themselves.”).
But the Court need not wade into that debate. Even if § 2J1.2’s commentary bound the
Court, it supports a narrower interpretation of the “administration of justice” than the
Government offers. The commentary to § 2J1.2 provides:
“Substantial interference with the administration of justice” includes a premature
or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any
judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence;
or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial Governmental or court resources.
U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 cmt. n.1. The modifying phrase “substantial interference” appears only in the
three-level enhancement. Compare § 2J1.2(b)(2), with id. (b)(1)(B) (eight-level enhancement
referencing only the “administration of justice”).
As it has in prior cases, the Government relies on the last portion of the definition, “the
15
unnecessary expenditure of substantial Governmental or court resources,” to argue that the
enhancement applies. See Gov’t Mem. at 29. According to the Government, this part of the
definition means that the “administration of justice” encompasses more than judicial
proceedings. See id. Because the rioters’ disruption of the electoral certification caused
“unnecessary expenditure of substantial Governmental . . . resources,” the argument goes, they
substantially interfered with the administration of justice. Id. While the events of January 6
caused the Government to commit significant resources—evidenced in part by the number of
cases charged in this district—this argument proves too much. If courts may enhance an
obstruction-related sentence by eleven levels any time the Government can show that the offense
caused unnecessary expenditure of its resources, “substantial interference with the administration
of justice” could encompass just about anything. Indeed, the Government could theoretically
trigger the enhancements at will.
The Government’s reliance on the “unnecessary expenditure” clause also obscures the
rest of the definition. In short, it fails to read that phrase in context. Substantial interference
with the administration of justice also “includes a premature or improper termination of a felony
investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false
testimony, or other false evidence[.]” U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 cmt. n.1. This portion of the definition
fits the Court’s textual interpretation of the “administration of justice” in Part III.A. The list
refers to investigations, verdicts, and judicial determinations—all of which involve the coercive
force of the state and the actual or potential determination of legal rights in judicial or
enforcement proceedings.
Isolating the “unnecessary expenditure of substantial Governmental . . . resources” clause
also cuts out the “or court” part of the phrase. That “Governmental” appears next to “court” in a
16
phrase about “resources” suggests that the term really refers to prosecutorial resources rather
than the expenditure of resources by any public agency. See Scalia & Garner at 195–98
(explaining that words “associated in a context suggesting that [they] have something in common
. . . should be given related meanings” under the canon noscitur a sociis). After all, a broad
definition of “Governmental” would include court resources, rendering the phrase “or court”
superfluous. See id. at 176–79 (explaining that under the surplusage canon, “courts must . . .
lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which
may make some idle and nugatory” (citation omitted)). That the other portions of the definition
also refer to judicial-like proceedings bolsters this conclusion.
More, the Government ignores another section of the commentary that lists exemplar
offenses to which this Guideline applies. See U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 cmt., Background. These
offenses fit with the Court’s definition of “administration of justice” in Part III.A. For example:
“using threats or force to intimidate or influence a juror or federal officer; obstructing a civil or
administrative proceeding; stealing or altering court records; unlawfully intercepting grand jury
deliberations . . . [and] using intimidation or force to influence testimony [or] alter evidence[.]”
Id. All the examples that the Commission provides evoke traditional notions of judicial or
enforcement proceedings and are consistent with the Court’s corpus linguistics analysis. None of
them relate to a legislative proceeding.
True, the commentary cross-references § 1512, along with a slew of other statutes. See
U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 cmt, Statutory Provisions. But that does not mean that the three- and eight-
point enhancements apply to every situation in which the Government charges § 1512(c)—only
that they could apply at times. Indeed, the mine run of § 1512(c) cases may well qualify for the
§ 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) enhancements. For there are many “official proceedings” that
17
involve the official application of force to decide legal rights, like a trial. But the key here is that
the electoral certification is not one such proceeding. It does not qualify for these enhancements
because it involves no judicial or quasi-judicial application of force to decide or maintain legal
rights.
C.
Finally, precedent. Seefried cites decisions that he claims limit the “administration of
justice” to “judicial or grand jury proceedings.” Def.’s Mem. at 4. The Government counters
that other courts have applied the enhancement to proceedings that would not fit Seefried’s
“narrow definition.” Gov’t Mem. at 30.
Seefried cites United States v. Aguilar, in which the Supreme Court construed the phrase
“due administration of justice” in another section of the same statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503. See 515
U.S. 593, 598–99 (1995). Section 1503 makes it a crime to “corruptly . . . influence[], obstruct[],
or impede[], or endeavor[] to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice[.]”
18 U.S.C. § 1503. This particular clause in the statute follows other prohibited conduct, most of
which pertain to judicial proceedings. See id. (forbidding the influencing, intimidating, or
impeding any juror or officer who may be “serving at any examination or other proceeding
before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate,” or injuring any such
officer).
In Aguilar, the Court held that a man who made false statements to FBI agents—a
potential grand jury witness—did not violate § 1503. See Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 599. The Court
reasoned that the FBI agents were not an “arm of the grand jury” and that grand jury had not
“even summoned them to testify.” Id. at 600. Because the defendant did not know that his false
statements were likely to affect the grand jury proceeding, the Court explained that he could not
18
be found guilty for “imped[ing] the due administration of justice.” Id. at 599–601. Ultimately,
Aguilar’s reasoning suggests that the “administration of justice” in § 1503 is analogous to a
“judicial or grand jury proceeding.” Id. at 599.
Seefried also cites various appellate decisions that follow Aguilar to interpret the “due
administration of justice” in § 1503 to mean “interfering with the procedure of a judicial hearing
or trial.” United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 502–03 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United
States v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, 1280 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Section 1503 employs the term ‘due
administration of justice’ to provide a protective cloak over all judicial proceedings.”); cf. United
States v. Warlick, 742 F.2d 113, 115–16 (4th Cir. 1984) (“[O]bstruction of the administration of
justice requires . . . some act that will . . . thwart the judicial process.”).
Admittedly, terms may carry different meanings in a statute versus a guideline. See, e.g.,
DePierre v. United States, 564 U.S. 70, 88 (2011). But Aguilar’s reasoning, and that of the
circuit courts following it, is still a building block in the wall of evidence supporting the reading
that the “administration of justice” involves a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding applying the
force of the state to decide legal rights.
The cases the Government cites do not cast doubt on this Court’s interpretation of the
“administration of justice.” See Gov’t Mem. at 30. Indeed, many of its authorities involve
judicial or investigative proceedings from which punishment could follow. See, e.g., United
States v. Pegg, 812 F. App’x 851, 860 (11th Cir. 2020) (defendant’s action “prevented the
government from prosecuting” another investigative target); United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron
Pipe Co., 627 F. Supp. 2d 180, 200–04 (D.N.J. 2009) (defendants’ actions obstructed agency’s
efforts to investigate a deadly accident); United States v. Weissman, 22 F. Supp. 2d 187, 194–98
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (defendant withheld subpoenaed documents from an investigative congressional
19
committee and lied at his deposition). And even the case it cites that is furthest from a judicial
proceeding still involved a law enforcement investigation. See United States v. Ali, 864 F.3d
573, 574 (7th Cir. 2017) (affirming application of the three-level administration of justice
enhancement where man absconded abroad with children and several federal agencies and agents
worked for days to complete his seizure). This Court’s interpretation fits comfortably alongside
these holdings.
Finally, though it is historical rather than legal precedent, recall that the phrase
“administration of justice” appears in one of our seminal founding documents: the Declaration of
Independence. And it does so in the context of judicial proceedings. In castigating King George
III, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his
Assent to law for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will
alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” The
Declaration of Independence para. 8 (U.S. 1776). In short, text, context, and precedent suggest
that the Government reads the “administration of justice” too broadly.
* * *
An inconsistency in the Government’s litigating position also bears noting. January 6
defendants have argued in motions to dismiss their indictments that they have not violated §
1512(c) because the statutory phrase “official proceeding” only references proceedings that
involve the administration of justice, and the electoral certification does not. See, e.g., United
States v. Sandlin, 575 F. Supp. 3d 16, 23–24 (D.D.C. 2021). Seefried made the same argument
here. See Mot. to Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 36.
The Government has argued in opposition that § 1512(c) “operates as a catch-all to cover
otherwise obstructive behavior that might not constitute a more specific” obstruction offense—
20
such as obstruction of the administration of justice. See Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 7–8, ECF
No. 44. Most judges in this district have agreed. See, e.g., United States v. Montgomery, 578 F.
Supp. 3d 54, 61–65 (D.D.C. 2021) (explaining that Congress does not engage in the
administration of justice). The Government cannot have its cake and eat it too. It would be
incongruous for this Court to say pre-trial that the “official proceeding” of the electoral
certification is more expansive than proceedings only involving the administration of justice, but
then turn around at sentencing to say the opposite.
It is the Government’s burden to prove that a sentencing enhancement applies. See
United States v. Bapack, 129 F.3d 1320, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1997). It has not done so here.
IV.
The Court acknowledges that this is a close interpretative call. If the Sentencing
Commission had foreseen the Capitol breach, it may well have included “official proceeding” in
the text of § 2J1.2. But the Commission did not. Given that courts should interpret the
Guidelines using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, this Court declines to rewrite
§ 2J1.2 to say what it does not. If the Commission wishes to expand the text of the Guideline to
include official proceedings such as the electoral certification, “it may seek to amend the
language of the guidelines by submitting the change for congressional review.” Winstead, 890
F.3d at 1092.
In the meantime, this Court may still consider the concerns underlying the Government’s
requests for these enhancements under the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. But for all of these
reasons, the Court finds that Seefried did not obstruct, impede, or interfere with the
“administration of justice” and that the enhancements in § 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) are
inapplicable.
21
SO ORDERED.
2022.10.31
08:40:40 -04'00'
Dated: October 31, 2022 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
22
Attachment A
Classification/Desc
Year Corpus Source or Source Type Excerpt of Concordance Line Contextual summary
ription
As we said in both Benoit and Ross , in determin
Maine, In the Matter of ing appropriate disciplinary sanctions , we must Considering appropriate sanctions for
Ronald L. KELLAM, be careful to assure the orderly administration of a judge whose discourtesy to parties Judicial discipline,
1986 COCAP 503 A.2d 1308 justice in the public interest . rose to violation of the Judicial Code. judicial proceeding
We agree with the finding of the hearing board th
at the respondent ’s conduct violated C.R.C.P. 24
1.6 and the following disciplinary rules in the Co
de of Professional Responsibility : DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( a lawyer shall not violate a disci
plinary rule ) ; DR 6 -
101 ( A ) ( 2 ) ( a lawyer shall not handle a legal
matter without preparation adequate in the circu
mstances ) ; DR 6 -
101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him ) ; DR 7 -
101 ( A ) ( l ) ( a lawyer shall not intentionally fa
il to seek the lawful objectives of his client ) ; D
R7-
Colorado, The PEOPLE 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a lawyer shall not prejudice or d
of the State of Colorado, amage his client during the course of the professi
Complainant, v. Thomas onal rela tionship ) ; and DR 1 -
H. MAY, Attorney- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( a lawyer shall not engage in con Finding lawyer's failure to apprise
Respondent, 745 P.2d duct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju client of case status violated state Discipline of lawyer,
1987 COCAP 218 stice ) . professional conduct rules. judicial proceeding
Texas, Phil P. O’NEAL,
Appellant, v. The Nevertheless , there comes a time when the order
COUNTY OF SAN ly administration of justice requires that the appe Discussing failure of court reporter
SABA, Appellee, 577 llate process be not delayed further by the absenc timely to prepare statement of facts Judicial proceeding,
1979 COCAP S.W.2d 795 e of the statement of facts . needed for appeal. not delaying
Michigan, PEOPLE v.
KAMIN; PEOPLE v. In Rich , this Court refused retroactive applicatio
AUSTIN; PEOPLE v. n of a jury instruction on the defense of intoxicati
CARGILL; PEOPLE v. on and specific intent because of the marked effe
HARRISON, 405 Mich. ct on the administration of justice in view of the Discussing reasons for a new rule's Judicial proceeding,
1979 COCAP 482 profound reliance on the old rule . exclusively prospective application jury instruction
Illinois,
INTERNATIONAL Although summary judgment is an important tool
SOCIETY FOR in the administration of justice and its use encou
KRISHNA raged in proper cases ( Fooden v. Board of Gover
CONSCIOUSNESS, nors ( 1971 ) , 48 Ill. 2d 580 , 586 , 272 N.E. 2d
INC., Plaintiff- 497 ; Allen v. Meyer ( 1958 ) , 14 Ill. 2d 284 , 29
Appellant, v. THE 2 , 152 N.E. 2d 576 ) , courts must remain cautio
CITY OF EVANSTON us not to preempt the right to trial by jury where
et al., Defendants- a material dispute may exist ( Anderson v. Doric
Appellees, 53 Ill. App. k ( 3rd Dist . 1975 ) , 28 Ill . App . 3d 225 , 227 , Discussing impropriety of grant of
1977 COCAP 3d 443 327 N.E. 2d 541 ) . summary judgment below. Judicial proceeding
Because the issue has potentially far -
D. Mass., UNITED reaching ramifications with respect to the orderl Asserting the ability of the court to
STATES of America v. y and effective administration of justice in the di defer ruling on an evidentiary motion Judicial proceeding,
John R. BARLETTA, strict court , it is appropriate that this court detail against Government's contrary judicial power &
1980 COCAP 500 F. Supp. 739 the basis for its determination . argument. prerogative
The imposition of the ethical obligation of honest
y upon lawyers under DR 1 -
Kansas, State of Kansas, 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) and subsequent discipline for viol
Petitioner, v. J. R. ation of the rule is permissible and may be neces Discussing tenstion between ethical
Russell, Respondent, sary in the interests of the administration of justi rules and lawyer's First Amendment
1980 COCAP 227 Kan. 897 ce . rights. Discipline of lawyer
A literal interpretation of Article I , § 22 of the C
onstitution of North Dakota would wreak havoc
with established judicial practices in that it would
N. Dakota, KFGO allow public access to all phases of the administr
RADIO, INC. and ation of justice , including chambers ’ conference
WDAY, Inc., Plaintiffs s , plea bargaining and settlement conferences , a
and Appellees, v. doption proceedings , those juvenile proceedings Discussing ramifications of state Judicial proceeding,
Cynthia ROTHE, 298 presently closed , grand jury proceedings , and ap constitutional provision concerning judicial power &
1980 COCAP N.W.2d 505 pellate court conferences . public's access to proceedings. prerogative
“ In a proceeding in which the Commission finds
that : ( 1 ) the subject matter is generally known
to the public ; ( 2 ) there is broad public interest ;
( 3 ) confidence in the administration of justice i
s threatened due to lack of public information co
ncerning the status and conduct of the proceedin
g ; and ( 4 ) the public interest in maintaining co
nfidence in the judicial office and the integrity of
the administration of justice requires that some o
r all aspects of such proceeding should be publicl
y conducted or otherwise reported or disclosed to
the public , the requirement of confidentiality m
ay , to the extent determined by the Commission
, be modified with respect to said proceeding ; an
Cal., Mosk v. Superior d , after completion of the investigation , a public Discussing when the Commission on
Ct. of Los Angeles hearing shall be held and shall be publicly condu Judicial Performance may allow Judicial proceeding,
1979 COCAP Cnty, 25 Cal. 3d 474 cted . disciplinary hearings to be public. discipline, judge
( 3 ) The misbehavior of any person in the presen
Pa., Smith v. Mason, ce of the court , thereby obstructing the administr Discussing when a person may be Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP 328 Pa. Super. 314 ation of justice . found in criminal contempt of court. contempt
After reviewing the record , we conclude that cau
se for discipline has been established and a publi
c censure is the appropriate discipline . In the for
mal complaint you were charged with violating R
ule 241 ( B ) , C.R. C.P. , and the Code of Profes
sional Responsibility , DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , DR 6 -
101 ( A ) ( 3 ) , and DR 7 -
101 ( A ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) , by reason of the followi
ng acts : ( 1 ) neglecting a legal matter entrusted t
o you ; ( 2 ) failing to carry out a contract of emp
loyment entered into with a client for professiona
l services ; ( 3 ) causing damage or prejudice to a
client during the course of your professional rela Concluding public censure was the
Colo., People v. tionship ; and ( 4 ) engaging in conduct that was appropriate discipline for a dilatory Judicial proceeding,
1981 COCAP Gottsegen, 623 P.2d 878 prejudicial to the administration of justice . and otherwise negligent attorney. discipline, lawyer
It was for this reason that a separate standard for
misbehavior , " conduct prejudicial to the admini
stration of justice by bringing the judicial office i
nto disrepute , ” was deleted by the Senate Judici
DDC, Hastings v. ary Committee for fear that such a general disrep Limiting a statute controlling
Judicial Conf. of the ute standard directly embodied in the statute coul censurable judicial behavior to that
United States, 593 F. d be used to intrude into a judge ’s personal life which would interfere with judge's Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP Supp. 1371 unrelated to his or her judicial conduct . duties or taint public's perception. discipline, judges
The proper administration of justice necessitates
Ind., In re Colestock, the maintenance of independent professional jud Finding that a lawyer violated rules of Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP 461 N.E.2d 137 gment by a lawyer on behalf of his client . professional responsibility. discipline, lawyer
Wash., In re Further , the holding of a private hearing would h
Disciplinary Proceeding ave damaged the public 's confidence in the admi
against Mark S. Demig, nistration of justice and led to suspicions as to th Finding appropriate the procedure of a
1987 COCAP 108 Wash. 2d 82 e objectiveness of the hearing . judicial conduct proceeding below. Judicial proceeding
The Independent Counsel relies on a single quota
tion plucked from Blackmer v. United States , 28
4 U.S. 421 , 438 , 52 S.Ct . 252 , 255 , 76 L.Ed .
375 ( 1932 ) : " one of the duties which the citize
n owes to his government is to support the admin
istration of justice by attending its courts and givi Rejecting government's request to
DDC, In re Sealed Case, ng his testimony whenever he is properly summo subpoena potentially self- Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP 832 F.2d 1268 ned . " incriminating documents. court procedure
In order to promote the expeditious administratio
N.C., LEA COMPANY n of justice , we elect to exercise the rarely used
v. NORTH CAROLINA general supervisory powers given this Court in ar
BOARD OF ticle IV , section 12 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of N Judicial proceeding,
TRANSPORTATION, orth Carolina and choose to address two collatera powers &
1986 COCAP 317 N.C. 254 l issues not raised by the parties . Guiding determination of damages. prerogatives
On the other hand , there are other dining occasio
ns that support activities germane to the State Ba
r ’s performance of its duties in the improvement
Mich., Falk v. State Bar of the administration of justice and the advance Assessing propriety of judges at Bar association
1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 ment of jurisprudence . various social functions. regulating judges
The concluding clause of the statute penalizes an
yone who “ corruptly ... endeavors to influence , Outlining provisions of s. 1503 against
E.D. Va., U.S. v. Caron, obstruct , or impede , the due administration of j improper influence of witness, juror, Judicial proceeding,
1982 COCAP 551 F. Supp. 662 ustice . ” or court official. perjury
The administration of justice would be greatly bu
rdened if required to accommodate separate trials
in all cases where multiple parties have participa
ted in a criminal offense and where one or more
have confessed to its commission . " State v. Fer
guson , 3 Wn . App . 898 , 906 , 479 P. 2d 114 (
Wash., State v. Samsel, 1970 ) , review denied , 78 Wn .2 d 996 ( 1971 ) Finding no error in refusal to grant Judicial proceeding,
1985 COCAP 39 Wash. App. 564 . motion to sever. court procedure
The committee found that respondent had violate Finding violation of professional rules
Pa., In Re Anonymous d D.R. 1 - requiring lawful behavior where
No. 60 D.B. 83, 33 Pa. 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) in that his conduct was prejudicia lawyer consumed drugs and consorted Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP D. & C.3d 187 l to the administration of justice . with drug dealers. discipline, lawyer
The Commission , based upon its findings of con
duct prejudicial to the administration of justice w
hich brings the judicial office into disrepute , as
Miss., In re Inquiry opposed to willful misconduct in office , has dete
Concerning County rmined that a public reprimand is an appropriate
Court Judge Kelly sanction finding that this case is somewhat simila Describing appropriate sanctions for
COLLINS, 524 So. 2d r to the trilogy of check collecting cases filed by t personal use of labor of county Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP 553 he Commission . prisoners. discipline, judge
In a mandamus action in which petitioner seeks t
o have discovery orders involving a claim of priv
ilege reviewed , we have held that review is appr
opriate when : “ ‘ ( 1 ) disclosure of the allegedly
privileged or confidential information renders i
mpossible any meaningful appellate review of th
e claim of privilege or confidentiality ; and ( 2 ) t
he disclosure involves questions of substantial im
portance to the administration of justice . ’ ” Unit
ed States v. West , 672 F. 2d 796 , 798 -
99 ( 10th Cir .1982 ) ( quoting United States v.
Winner , 641 F. 2d 825 , 830 ( 10th Cir .1981 ) (
quoting Iowa Beef Processors , Inc. v. Bagley , 6
C.A. 10, 01 F. 2d 949 ( 8th Cir .1979 ) ) , cert . denied , 4
Barclaysamerican Corp. 57 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct . 2959 , 73 L.Ed .2 d 13 Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP v. Kane, 746 F.2d 653 50 ( 1982 ) . Refusing to breach judicial privilege. discipline, judge
It is very obvious that the public policy which re
nders the protection of witnesses necessary for th
e administration of justice must as a necessary co
nsequence involve that which is a step towards a Upholding absolute privilege for
nd is part of the administration of justice — nam defamatory statements in documents
Md., Adams v. Peck, ely , the preliminary examination of witnesses to prepared for use inlitigation but not Judical proceeding,
1980 COCAP 288 Md. 1 fínd out what they can prove . filed. procedure
In our judgment the court ’s order requiring appe
llant to wear a tie in court was a simple requirem
Ak., Friedman v. ent bearing a reasonable relationship to the prope Judicial proceeding,
District Court, 611 P.2d r administration of justice in that court . ” Id . at Upholding court's requirements of powers &
1980 COCAP 77 23 . minimum standards of dress. prerogatives
“ This was in disobedience to a lawful order , or
a command , if you want to call it that , of the co Reviewing proceedings below to find
Ga., Dowdy v. Palmour, urt , which tended to obstruct the administration in contempt attornets who did not Judicial proceeding,
1982 COCAP 164 Ga. App. 804 of justice . stand to reply to the court. discipline, lawyer
Finally , the Magistrate concluded that no conditi
on or combination of conditions would assure the
D. P.R., U.S. v. safety of the Government ’s witnesses and the c Judicial proceeding,
Acevedo-Ramos, 600 F. ommunity or insure the proper administration of Reviewing magistrate judge's pretrial powers &
1984 COCAP Supp. 501 justice in defendant ’s case . detention of witness. prerogatives
CITY CONSUMER
SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. David G. Judicial proceeding,
HORNE, et al., Disqualification will not hinder the efficient adm Consdering motion to disqualify powers &
1983 COCAP Defendants inistration of justice counsel. prerogatives
The term " serious crime " shall include any felo
ny and any lesser crime a necessary element of w
hich , as determined by the statutory or common
law definition of such crime , involves improper
conduct as an attorney , interference with the ad
ministration of justice , false swearing , misrepre
sentation , fraud , willful failure to file income ta
x returns , deceit , bribery , extortion , misapprop
D.C., In re James D. riation , theft , or an attempt or a conspiracy or so Considering whether conduct of
Hutchinson, 518 A.2d licitation of another to commit a " serious crime . attorney was "serious crime" requiring Judicial proceeding,
1986 COCAP 995 ” disbarment. discipline, lawyer
Fla., Petition of
SUPREME COURT
SPECIAL
COMMITTEE FOR
LAWYER
DISCIPLINARY
PROCEDURES TO
AMEND Describing goals of program providing
INTEGRATION RULE, for deposition of clients' common trust
ARTICLE II AND The goals of the Court ’s program are to improve funds in savings accounts, interest
ARTICLE XI, 373 So. the administration of justice in this state and to e payable to programs designed to Judicial proceeding,
1979 COCAP 2d 1 xpand the delivery of legal services to the poor . benefit the public. policy
Although the court concluded that “ there was an
ample independent source of identification ” , it a
dded that it was so tainted by duress and imprope
D.C., U.S. v. Walton, r suggestiveness “ that it would . be an aberration Describing reasoning to forbid in- Judical proceeding,
1979 COCAP 411 A.2d 333 in the administration of justice ” to permit it . court identification. procedure
Courts exist for the administration of justice , an
d in the conduct of trials in general much must ,
of necessity , and in the very nature of things , be
left to the discretion of the court charged with th
e duty of administering justice , and having the i
Ala., Hall v. State, 377 nherent power to regulate such matters in the tria Explaining finding of no abuse of Judical proceeding,
1979 COCAP So. 2d 1123 l forum . discretion below. procedure
Therefore , we sustain charge II , but only insofa
r as it charges respondent with engaging in " con
duct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju
stice ” ( DR 1 -
102 [ A ] [ 5 ] ) and " [ c ] onceal [ ing ] or kno
wingly fail [ ing ] to disclose that which he is req Upholding sanction for failure to
N.Y., In re Devine, 128 uired by law to reveal ” ( DR 7 - comply with subpoena of documents Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP A.D.2d 1024 102 [ A ] [ 3 ] ) . as predicate to censure. discipline, lawyer
The hearing committee found that while respond
ent had not violated Disciplinary Rule 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 3 ) , which provides for illegal condu
ct involving moral turpitude , it did find that resp
ondent violated Rules of Professional Responsibi
lity D.R. 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 4 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc
t amounting to a form of misrepresentation , D.R
.1-
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc
t that is prejudicial to the administration of justic
e , and D.R. 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 6 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc Characterizing behavior of lawyer
Pa., In re Anonymous t that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice l who misrepresented facts in Judicial proceeding,
1978 COCAP No. 25 D.B. 77 aw : transaction. discipline, lawyer
" This is a serious crime because the true admini
C.A. 2, U.S. v. Assi, stration of justice is the cornerstone of all our lib
1984 COCAP 748 F.2d 62 erties . Judge providing jury instructions Judicial proceeding
N.Y., People v. Discussing incentives back of
Grissom, 128 Misc. 2d Requiring the party who wants the minutes to ord production requirements as between Judicial proceeding,
1985 COCAP 246 er them promotes the administration of justice . parties. procedure
Bredemann v. Bredemann , 253 Minn. 21 , 24 -
5 , 91 N.W. 2d 84 , 87 ( 1958 ) stated the rule th
at dissolution judgments may be set aside “ unde
r such circumstances as amount to a fraud on the
court and the administration of justice . * * * To
Minn., In re Marriage of be fraud on the court and the administration of ju
Adams, 393 N.W.2d stice , there must be found to be fraud on [ the wi Judicial proceeding,
1986 COCAP 508 fe ] . " Explaining controlling precedent. procedure
We are also conscious of undue delays in the ad
ministration of justice produced by unnecessary t
rials , and also of the crushing financial burdens Judicial proceeding,
C.A. 3, U.S. v. placed on the taxpayers who ultimately pay the e Rejecting judicial economy arguments powers &
1978 COCAP Moskow, 588 F.2d 882 xpenses of federal criminal litigation . against allowing conditional pleas. prerogatives
The obstruction of justice predicate contained in
paragraph 5 provides : It was part of the pattern o
f racketeering activity that in or about September
, 1981 , in the Eastern District of New York and
elsewhere , that the defendants , Joseph Massino
, a / k / a “ Joseph Messina , ” a / k / a “ Joseph
Massina , ” a / k / a “ Joey , ” and Salvatore Vital
e , a / k / a “ Sally , ” unlawfully , wilfully and kn
owingly would and did corruptly endeavor to infl
uence , obstruct and impede the due administrati
on of justice in that the defendants would and did
corruptly endeavor to counsel another person to
avoid service of a grand jury subpoena , in violati
S.D.N.Y., U.S. v. on of Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150 Judicial proceeding,
1986 COCAP Vitale, 635 F. Supp. 194 3 . Recalling the indictment. procedure
The defendant argued that he could not be guilty Rejecting argument that grand jury
E.D. Pa., U.S. v. of the offense because there was no judicial proc must have heard testimony or decided
Simmons, 444 F. Supp. eeding pending which could be equated to an “ a to issue subpoean before it could be
1978 COCAP 500 dministration of justice . ” "obstructed." Grand Jury
The complaint alleged that his described conduct
violated DR 6 -
101 ( A ) ( l ) and ( 3 ) , which provide that a la
wyer shall not handle a legal matter when he kno
ws , or should know , that he is not competent to
do so , and that he shall not neglect a legal matter
Ore., In re Complaint as entrusted to him . Violation of DR 1 -
to the Conduct of 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) was also charged . That rule forbi Assessing discipline of lawyer whose
RICHARD F. CRIST, ds a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudici inexperience made him incompetent
1984 COCAP Accused, 683 P.2d 85 al to the administration of justice . to handle a probate. Discipline, Lawyer
As the Supreme Court noted in Northern Pipelin
e Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , s
upra , 458 U.S. 50 at 64 , n. 15 , 102 S.Ct . 2858
Bankr. N.D. Ga., In re at 2867 , n. 15 , 73 L.Ed .2 d 598 at 610 , n. 15 :
Seven Springs “ The Framers chose to leave to Congress the pre Explaining why courts cannot arrogate Judicial proceeding,
Apartments, Phase II, cise role to be played by the lower federal courts powers not given to them by powers &
1983 COCAP 33 B.R. 458 in the administration of justice . ” Congress. prerogatives
The accused ’s conduct with respect to his intera
Ore., In re: Complaint ction with Calvin and with Wade was boorish in
as to the Conduct of the extreme , but the issue is whether that conduc
WILLIAM C. t was “ prejudicial to the administration of justice Finding that badgering of clerks was
ROCHAT, Accused, ” or “ adversely reflects on his fitness to practice prejudicial to the administration of
1983 COCAP 295 Or. 533 law ” or both . justice. Discipline, Lawyer
Certainly this court recognizes the importance of
the orderly and efficient administration of justice
but acknowledges the court ’s primary responsib
ility of assuring individuals their rights to a prope
E.D. Va., U.S. v. Allen, rly selected jury , based upon the Batson standar Qualifiying criticisms of imprecion of Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP 666 F. Supp. 847 ds . guidance to lower courts. procedure
Mass., Michael J. Foley Although the single justice was not in error , it is
vs. Lowell Division of appropriate that we consider the matter under our
the District Court broader inherent common law and constitutional
Department, 398 Mass. powers to supervise the administration of justice Taking cognizance of a justice's
1986 COCAP 800 . conduct. Discipline, judge
But , while the mediation of courts is based upon
the principle of judicial impartiality , disintereste
dness , and fairness pervading the whole system
of judicature , so that courts may as near as possi
ble be above suspicion , there is , on the other sid
e , an important issue at stake : that is , that cause
s may not be unfairly prejudiced , unduly delayed
, or discontent created through unfounded charg
es of prejudice or unfairness made against the ju
Pa., Commonwealth v. dge in the trial of a cause . It is of great importan
Cherpes, 360 Pa. Super. ce to the administration of justice that such shoul Outlining the duties and discretion of
1987 COCAP 246 d not occur . a judge to vet his own imparitality. Discipline, judge
None of these cases contains any reasoned analys
is explaining why the “ administration of justice
” language should include bar proceedings . Upo
n reflection , however , we conclude that it does .
Ore., In re Complaint as Bar disciplinary proceedings , although sui gene Asserting that bar proceedings are
to the Conduct of ris in nature , strongly resemble judicial proceedi "adminsitration of justice" for
FERRIS F. BOOTHE, ngs in that they primarily involve factual adjudic purposes of rules of professional
1987 COCAP Accused, 740 P.2d 785 ations . conduct. Discipline, lawyer
C.A. 6, DETROIT
POLICE OFFICERS’
ASSOCIATION et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. see also President ’s Commission on Law Enforc Referencing
Coleman A. YOUNG, ement and the Administration of Justice , Task F President's
Mayor of the City of orce Report : The Police 169 , 174 ( 1967 ) ( citi Commission on Law
Detroit, et al., ng sur veys which found racially exclusionary hir Adducing evidence and citations that Enforcement and the
Defendants-Appellants, ing practices and racially discriminatory job assig hiring program did not violate Title Administration of
1979 COCAP 608 F.2d 671 nments in Detroit Police Department ) . VII. Justice
Not only did Respondent engage in conduct preju
dicial to the administration of justice in ignoring
the various inquiries sent to him by Bar Counsel
in the Jones Conservatorship case , but he made
D.C., In re Melvin J. arguments and gave testimony at the hearing in t
WASHINGTON, 489 his case that the Hearing Committee charitably c Characterizing conduct that resulted in
1985 COCAP A.2d 452 haracterized as “ frivolous . ” three months' suspension. Discipline, Lawyer
This is a distinction well recognized in Common
wealth v. Shawell , supra. , wherein the Supreme
Court said : “ The nature and character [ of the d
uty ] and the practice under the common law and
related statutes must control the interpretation of
the term ‘ court . ’ Is the duty of such nature as t
o require joint consideration by all the members
of the court ? . .
. The appointment and removal of public official
s..
.has far reaching consequences and should be ex
ercised by all the available judges of the tribunal
assembled . .
. ( but ) there are many things in connection with
Pa., Hamill Estate, 3 Pa. the general administration of justice ( that may b Judicial powers &
***1977 COCAP D. & C.3d 100 e done by fewer members ) . ” Elaborating on the court's functions. prerogatives
As pointed out in United States v. Tateo , supra ,
377 U.S. at 466 , the rule of United States v. Ball
is also grounded upon fairness in the administrat
Md., Sweetwine v. ion of justice , considering the interests of the pu Discussing the appropriate scope of Judicial proceeding,
1980 COCAP State, 288 Md. 199 blic as well as those of the defendant . grant of retrial. procedure
Asserting liability under disciplinary
Ore., In Re: Complaint rule for causing secreatary (also a
as to the conduct of Smith , by persuading his secretary to make a fal notary) to make a false
HECTOR E. SMITH, se acknowledgement , engaged in conduct that pr acknowledgement on a power of a
1981 COCAP Accused, 292 Or. 84 ejudicial to the administration of justice . attorney. Discipline, Lawyer
In re Murphy states that opinion work product “ c
an be discovered only in very rare and extraordin
ary circumstances . where weighty consideration
D. Minn., U.S. v. s of public policy and a proper administration of
Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. justice would militate against the nondiscovery o Discussing appropriate bounds of Judicial proceeding,
1979 COCAP 1070 f an attorney ’s mental impressions . ” privilege. procedure
As discussed in Section I.A , supra , by developi
ng a complete and searching record , the trial cou
C.A. 9, U.S. v. Kamer, rt can , and should , ensure the thor ough and eff Grounding the insufficieny of trial Judicial proceeding,
1986 COCAP 781 F.2d 1380 ective administration of justice . judge's process. procedure
Respondent is further charged with violating Dis
ciplinary Rules 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 1 ) , ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) , by engagin
g in conduct involy -
ing dishonesty , fraud , deceit or misrepresentati
on and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the ad Describing basis of liability for
Ind., In re McDaniel, ministration of justice which adversely reflects o knowingly false testimony to grand Perjury, Discipline,
1984 COCAP 470 N.E.2d 1327 n his fitness to practice law . jury. Lawyer
Section 53a -
147 , a part of our penal code , covers the crime
of bribery in broad terms and is not limited to the
Conn., State v. Carr, jr., administration of justice and attempts to influen Describing basis of liability for
1977 COCAP 172 Conn. 458 ce legislation . bribing a police officer. Law enforcement
The administration of justice under our adversary
system largely depends upon the public ’s ability
Md., Atty Gen'l of Md. to rely on the honesty of attorneys who are place
v. Waldron, 289 Md. d in a position of being called upon to conduct th Asserting and explaining judicial
1981 COCAP 683 e affairs of others both in and out of court . oversight of the bar. discipline, judges
The court notes that to try both of these charges s
eparately is not in the best administration of justi
ce , for among other reasons — a ) the cost and ti
me of two trials , and b ) inconvenience to witnes
Fla., State v. Patrus, 46 ses returning for a second trial , and c ) delay in u Finding trial court exceeded discretion Judicial proceeding,
1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 19 ltimate resolve of the accusations . in requiring separate trials. procedure
We recognize that the fair and orderly administra
tion of justice requires that trial judges must have
reasonable discretion in dealing with errant juror
s who demonstrate their unwillingness to abide b
Miss., Jones v. State, y the instructions of the court , or other unanticip Defending discretion of judges to Judicial proceeding,
1981 COCAP 398 So. 2d 1312 ated occurrences which transpire during trials . discontinue trials. procedure
Finally , we do not believe that retroactive applic
ation of Brown will " ' cast substantial doubt upo
n the validity of numerous prior judgments , and
would impose a great burden on the administrati
Wash., In the Matter of on of justice by allowing many cases to be relitig
the Marriage of Joyce E. ated . .
Hilt, Respondent, and . " ' Milbradt , 103 Wn .2 d at 342 , quoting Ann
Daniel M. Hilt, ot. , Comment Note — Prospective or Retroactiv
Appellant, 41 Wash. e Operation of Overruling Decision , 10 A.L.R. 3 Deciding to allow retroactive
1985 COCAP App. 434 d 1371 , 1391 ( 1966 ) . application of new rule. Judicial proceedings
The general subject is , therefore , one in which t
he public [ has ] an interest , with regard to whic
h legislative action , in the interest of the public i
s absolutely necessary . . .
. [ The use of stenographers to report judicial pro
ceedings ] expedites judi cial procedure , econom
izes the time of public tribunals , and so promote
s the prompt administration of justice and reduce
Pa., Jones v. Montefiore s the amount of public moneys in that behalf exp Requiring county to pay costs of Judicial proceeding,
1980 COCAP Hosp., 418 A.2d 1361 ended stenography. procedure
Because the court could not sanction the method
by which the jury panel was formed , it reversed
the judgment below " in the exercise of our powe Quoting precedent in discussion of
Colo., Fields v. People, r of supervision over the administration of justice review of lower court's practices for Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP 732 P.2d 1145 in the federal courts . " calling potential jurors. procedure
The Bar states that acceptance of this petition wil
l not adversely affect the public interest , underm
Fla., Fla. Bar v. ine the purity of the courts , or hinder the admini Granting peition for leave to resign
Hawkins, 467 So. 2d stration of justice or the confidence of the public where attorney repeatedly failed in his
***1985 COCAP 998 in the legal profession . duties. Discipline, Lawyer
Md., ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION OF
MARYLAND v.
WILLIAM H. Quoting disciplinary rule as basis for
PATTISON, JR., 292 Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi liability of attorney who converted
1982 COCAP Md. 599 nistration of justice . client funds to his own use. Discipline, Lawyer
An attorney may also be disciplined for conduct
Kan., State v. Russell, which interferes with the processes of the admini Quoting bases of liabilty for attorney's
1980 COCAP 227 Kan. 897 stration of justice statements. Discipline, Lawyer
Rule 60 ( b ) , however , does not subsume or abr
D.C., Synanon ogate the court ’s “ inherent power to dismiss an
Foundation, Inc. v. action when a party has willfully deceived the co
Bernstein, 503 A.2d urt and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent w Assessing remedial options against
1986 COCAP 1254 ith the orderly administration of justice . ” attorney's fraud on the court. Discipline, Lawyer
He voiced concern that the holding of the majorit
y invites state and federal authorities to undermin
e the historic independence of the press by attem
pting to annex the journalistic profession as an in
vestigative arm of government which will in the l Discussing Supreme Court opinions
Oh., In re McAuley, 63 ong run harm rather than help the administration on the limited reporter's privilege from
1979 COCAP Ohio App. 2d 5 of justice . testifying before grand juries. Grand Jury
In determining the retroactivity of constitutional r
ules in criminal cases , the Supreme Court has co
nsidered three criteria : “ ‘ ( a ) the purpose to be
served by the new standards , ( b ) the extent of t
he reliance by law enforcement authorities on the
old standards , and ( c ) the effect on the admini
stration of justice of a retroactive application of t Reciting doctrinal basis for Judicial proceeding,
1985 COCAP C.A. 7, 757 F.2d 811 he new standards . ’ retroactivity determination. procedure
Neither good -
faith reliance by state or federal authorities on pr
ior constitutional law or accepted practice , nor s
evere impact on the administration of justice has
sufficed to require prospective application in thes
e circumstances . ” ( Williams v United States , 4 Reciting doctrinal basis for giving
N.Y., People v. Molina, 01 US 646 , 653 ; United States v Johnson , 457 retroactive effect to motion to Judicial proceeding,
1983 COCAP 121 Misc. 2d 483 US 537 . ) suppress evidence. evidence
The speedy and efficient administration of justic
E.D. Ark., Curl v. Gen. e requires , however , that ‘ [ m ] eritless claims .
Tele. Co. of the .. be disposed of at the first appropriate opportuni
Southwest, 669 F. Supp. ty . ’ Hungate v. United States , 626 F. 2d 60 , 62 Discussing the dismissal of a Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP 930 ( 8th Cir .1980 ) . complaint. procedure
He noted , for example , that “ although the rule i
s thought to deter unlawful police activity in part
through the nurturing of respect for Fourth Amen
dment values , if applied indiscriminately it may
C.A. 3, Morrison v. well have the opposite effect of generating disres
Kimmelman, 752 F.2d pect for the law and administration of justice . ” I Discussing Powell, J. on the
1985 COCAP 918 d . 428 U.S. at 491 , 96 S.Ct . at 3051 . exclusionary rule. Law enforcement
The majority would do well to bear in mind the c
omment of Judge Markell for this Court in the ca
se of In re Meyerson , 190 Md. 671 , 678 , 59 A.
2d 489 ( 1948 ) , quoted many times since then ,
to the effect that “ due regard for the administrati
Md., In re Application on of justice does not permit disbarment and rein
of Howard C., 286 Md. statement to be made mere adjuncts to reform sc Discussing timing of admission to the
1979 COCAP 244 hools and the parole system . ” bar aafter criminal acts. Discipline, Lawyer
The following acts or omissions by an attorney , i
ndividually or in concert with another person , ar
e misconduct and grounds for discipline , whethe
r or not occurring in the course of an attorney - Citing grounds of liability for attorney
Mich., In re Grimes, client relationship : " ( 1 ) conduct prejudicial to who backdated and persuaded client to
1982 COCAP 414 Mich. 483 the proper administration of justice ; " backdated a loan agreement. Discipline, Lawyer
Steinle mistakenly believes that his duty to his cli
ent extends even to commencing a frivolous and
meritless action intended to harass appellees and
to impede and obstruct the due administration of
justice by intentionally forcing a United States Di
C.A. 7, Steinle v. strict Judge to recuse himself from a pending cri
1985 COCAP Warren, 765 F.2d 95 minal case on the eve of trial . Characterizing attorney's conduct. Discipline, Lawyer
Characterizing attorney's repeated
Ind., In re Friedland, There are limits which have been drawn to guara violations of rules of professional
1981 COCAP 416 N.E.2d 433 ntee the effective administration of justice . conduct. Discipline, Lawyer
Although a defendant ’s right to counsel must be
respected , this right can not be manipulated in s
uch a manner as to impede the efficient administ
ration of justice . People v. Lucero , Colo. , 615
P. 2d 660 ( 1980 ) ; United States ex rel . Basker Discussing rejection of defendant's
ville v. Deegan , 428 F. 2d 714 ( 2d Cir . 1970 ) , request to discharge counsel and
Colo., People v. Barnes, cert . denied , 400 U.S. 928 , 91 S.Ct . 193 , 27 represent himself after jury was Judicial proceeding,
1981 COCAP 636 P.2d 1323 L.Ed .2 d 188 . empanneled. procedure
However , because of the strong constitutional i
mplications of the attorney -
client privilege , “ it would serve the orderly ad
ministration of justice and further insure the defe
ndant a fair trial if the admissibility of the [ attor
ney -
client communications ] could be determined in Explaining use of motion to suppress
La., State v. Taylor, 502 a pretrial proceeding . ” State v. Tanner , supra , to test admissibility of attorney-client Judicial proceeding,
1987 COCAP So. 2d 537 at 1174 . communications before trial. procedure
U.S. Claims, White The interests embodied in rules dealing with pret
Mountain Apache Tribe rial disclosure are significant and are an essential Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP v. U.S., 4 Cl. Ct. 575 part of the administration of justice . Discussing sanctions. procedure
Complaint Concerning
The Honorable Robert
Crane WINTON, Jr., Standard of Conduct The Code of Judicial Condu
Judge of District Court, ct focuses on conduct prejudicial to the administr
Hennepin County, State ation of justice , which includes but is not limited Explaining significance of canons
***1984 COCAP of Minnesota to criminal conduct . within Code of Judicial Conduct. Discipline, judge
Factors to be taken into account in determining w
hether a decision is to be applied prospectively or
retroactively are : ( 1 ) the purpose of the new ru
le , ( 2 ) the general reliance on the old rule , and
Mich., Hardigree v. ( 3 ) the affect on the administration of justice . P Reciting factors for determining
Green, 97 Mich. App. eople v Hampton , 384 Mich 669 , 673 - retroactive or prospective application Judicial proceeding,
1980 COCAP 62 674 ; 187 NW2d 404 ( 1971 ) . of a decision. precedent
Our inspection of the District ’s Plan persuades u
s that , though it burdens the Court , counsel and
others involved in the administration of justice , i
t does not , as a corollary , reward defendants wit
C.A. 5, U.S. v. Bullock, h automatic dismissals in all cases of underachie Assessing a District Court's plan for Judicial proceeding,
1977 COCAP 551 F.2d 1377 vement . case management. procedure
N.J., Greenberg v. The recusal of all judges so affected could impos Rejecting mandatory recusal of judges
Kimmelman, 99 N.J. e a substantial burden on the administration of ju whose spouses work in the kind of
1985 COCAP 552 stice , particularly in Atlantic County . business at bar. Discipline, judge
The Illinois Supreme Court “ has frequently held
that differences in the size of the municipalities
may raise special or unique problems in connecti
Ill., Rincon v. License on with many activities which justify classificatio
Appeal Comm'n of the n including * * * [ the ] administration of justice Allowing different review procedures Local
City of Chicago, 62 Ill. , [ citations ] • • Du Bois v. Gibbons ( 1954 ) , 2 for license depending on the size of commissioners
1978 COCAP App. 3d 600 Ill. 2d 392 , 402 , 118 N.E. 2d 295 , 301 . the municipality. issuing licenses
The only authority cited by the Willough -
bys to support their argument for the requiremen
t of a specific intent is a definition of contempt in
an Illinois case , picked up and quoted by this co
urt in In re Holbrook , 133 Me . 276 , 280 , 177
A. 418 , 420 ( 1935 ) , along with an assortment
of other definitions from other jurisdictions : any
act which is calculated to embarrass , hinder or o
bstruct the court in the administration of justice ..
.. ( Emphasis added ) We reject the Willough -
bys ’ suggestions that “ is calculated ” as there u
Me., State v. sed means “ is specifically intended ” ; we read “
Willoughby, 532 A.2d is calculated ” as meaning nothing more than “ h
1987 COCAP 1020 as a natural tendency . ” Upholding contempt conviction. Judicial proceeding
This contempt power may not be taken away or a Judicial proceeding,
Ala., Hall v. Hall, 485 bridged , as it is essential to the due administratio powers &
1986 COCAP So. 2d 747 n of justice . Describing a court's inherent power. prerogatives
The trial judge ’s knowledge of the condition of
his docket , considered against the need for an or
derly and prompt administration of justice , place
d him in a unique position to determine whether t Allowing dismissal with prejudice
La., Thomas v. State, he dismissal should be with or without prejudice considering previous continuances and Judicial proceeding,
1980 COCAP 383 So. 2d 108 . judge's docket. procedure
Here , sufficient evidence was presented from w
hich the trial court could conclude that the respon
dents knew that the preliminarily qualified jurors
were precluded from talking to anyone , includin
g members of the media , about the case ; that th
e respondents ’ conduct in contacting the jurors d
espite this knowledge was “ volitional and comm
itted when they knew their conduct was wrongful
” ; and that the respondents ’ conduct was ' cont
emptuous because they “ knowingly interfered wi
th the lawful Order of the court and that misbeha
vior was of such a character as to obstruct the ad Judicial proceeding,
Colo., In re Stone, 703 ministration of justice ” and offend the dignity of Upholding contempt finding for powers &
1985 COCAP P.2d 1319 the court . improper contact with jurors. prerogatives
His actions undertaken with such knowledge wo
uld demonstrate a fundamental lack of honesty a
nd truthfulness , a deep want of trustworthiness a
nd fidelity to those with whom he has entered a b
usiness relationship , and a chronic contempt for
N.J., In re Application the administration of justice and the laws that go Characterizing lawyer's engagement in
1983 COCAP of Matthews, 94 N.J. 59 vern the affairs of individuals . criminal activity. Discipline, Lawyer
The policy underlying the statute of limitations is
primarily for the protection of the defendant , an
d the courts , from litigation of stale claims wher
e plaintiffs have slept on their rights and evidenc
e may have been lost or witnesses ’ memories fa
ded . This policy is sound and necessary for the o
Az., Dicenso v. Bryant rderly administration of justice . ” Brooks v. Sout
Air Conditioning Corp., hern Pacific Co. , 105 Ariz. 442 , 444 , 466 P. 2d Judicial proceeding,
1982 COCAP 131 Ariz. 605 736 , 738 ( 1970 ) . Discussing doctrine. procedure
. If the single justice concludes that the administr
ation of justice would not be facilitated by reporti
Mass., Commonwealth ng the appeal to the full bench , the Commonwea Judicial proceeding,
v. Dunigan et al., 384 lth can not proceed as if no determination had be Affirming judicial prerogatives under powers &
1981 COCAP Mass. 1 en made . state law. prerogatives
To the extent such a charge is valid at common la
w , it is constitutionally impermissible as it disco
urages defendants from exercising their rights to Considering whether a perjury
C.A. 4, U.S. v. Endo, testify , without substantially benefiting the admi information is constitutionally Judicial proceeding,
1980 COCAP 635 F.2d 321 nistration of justice . permissible. procedure
The Court noted that , according to her allegation
s , plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for her r
efusal to commit a criminal act and that to permit
N.C., Hogan et al. v, her discharge , without legal recourse , upon suc Assessing the bounds of at-will
Forsyth Country Club h grounds would be offensive to the compelling p employment; plaintiff getting her day
1986 COCAP Co., 79 N.C. App. 483 ublic interest in the administration of justice . in court Judicial proceeding
In so holding , we are aware of the consideration
s regarding possible prior good -
faith reliance on RAJI 4.01 and the administratio Judicial proceeding,
Az., State v. Garcia, 152 n of justice as the result of vacating prior convicti Discussing retroactive application of a powers &
1986 COCAP Ariz. 245 ons in cases where that instruction was given . new rule. prerogatives
We are further satisfied that Judge Blair did not e
rr in concluding , based on his factual findings , t
hat Santamour ’s conduct did not “ [ fall ] below
an acceptable standard for fair and honorable ad
Ala., Blakesley v. State, ministration of justice . ” Bruce v. State , 612 P.
1986 COCAP 715 P.2d 269 2d 1012 ( Alaska 1980 ) . Rejecting defense of entrapment. Law enforcement
Va., Stockton v. The orderly administration of justice requires tha
Commonwealth, 227 t tactical matters , such as continuances , be left Finding meritless dispute with court- Judicial proceeding,
1984 COCAP Va. 124 with counsel . appointed counsel. procedure
Respondents assert that these requirements facilit
ate the efficient administration of justice , becaus
e nonresident attorneys allegedly are less compet
Sup. Ct., Frazier v. ent and less available to the court than resident at Finding discriminatory bar admission Bar association rules
1987 COCAP Heebe, 96 L. Ed. 2d 557 torneys . rules not backed by evidence. regulating lawyers
Cal., Wenger v. Prejudicial conduct must be “ conduct prejudicial
Comm'n on Judicial to the administration of justice that brings the ju
Performance, 29 Cal. 3d dicial office into disrepute . ” ( Const. , art . VI , Assessing bases for disqualification of
1981 COCAP 615 § 18 , subd . ( c ) ; italics added . ) a judge. Discipline, judge
W.D. Mo., Williams v. The preservation of public trust both in the scrup Explaining motivations for requiring
Trans World Airlines, ulous administration of justice and in the integrit disqualification of attorney likely to
1984 COCAP Inc., 588 F. Supp. 1037 y of the bar is paramount . reveal confidential information. Discipline, Lawyer
The trial court ’s inherent power to protect the so
und administration of justice has provided the ba Judicial proceeding,
C.A. 9, Wheeler v. U.S., sis for orders issued to protect jurors after the tria Discussing a post-trial protective powers &
1981 COCAP 640 F.2d 1116 l has ended . order. prerogatives
If the Government suffered any prejudice , the sp
ecifics of which are still unknown to me , it was
E.D. Pa., U.S. v. plainly self -
Consolidated Foods inflicted . Delay in the administration of justice Chiding the government's lack of Judicial proceeding,
1978 COCAP Corp., 455 F. Supp. 142 has been the subject of much criticism . preparation. procedure
“ Administration of justice ” has been described t
husly : “ The administration of justice consists in
the trial of cases in the court , and their judicial
determination and disposition by orderly procedu
re , under rules of law , and putting of the judgm
ent into effect . ” Massey v. City of Macon , 97
Ga.App . 790 , 794 , 104 S.E. 2d 518 , 521 -
522 ( 1958 ) . We do not believe that the langua
ge “ a lawyer shall not : . . engage in conduct that
is prejudicial to the administration of justice ” is
so vague and indefinite that it violates the due pr Discussing state bar rules and refusing
Tex., Howell v. State, ocess and equal protection clauses of the Constit vagueness challenge in disciplinary
1977 COCAP 559 S.W.2d 432 ution of Texas . case. Discipline, Lawyer
In contrast to the problems of choice of forum , c
hoice of law and conflicting rules of navigation f
oreseen in those cases , we see no similar burden
C.A. 1, Austin v. s on the administration of justice or on the flow o
Unarco Indus., Inc., 705 f maritime commerce that will result from a deni Discussing concerns in the definition Judicial proceeding,
1983 COCAP F.2d 1 al of admiralty jurisdiction in this case . of the reach of admiralty jurisdiction. procedure
“ By withholding the identity of the informer , th
e government profits in that the continued value
of informants placed in strategic positions is prot
ected , and other persons are encouraged to coop
erate in the administration of justice . ” United St Discussing the necessity of anonymity
C.A. 2, In re U.S., 565 ates v. Tucker , 380 F. 2d 206 , 213 ( 2d Cir . 19 of informants to promote cooperation
1977 COCAP F.2d 19 67 ) . with law enforcement. Law enforcement
Particularly in an era of excessively crowded low
er court dockets , it is in the interest of the fair an Quoting Supreme Court's
C.A. 9, Vauman v. U.S. d prompt administration of justice to discourage reaffirmation of review of final rather Judicial proceeding,
1977 COCAP Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 piecemeal litigation . than "piecemeal" judgments. procedure
See § 3162 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( “ the court shall consider ,
among others , each of the following factors : th
e seriousness of the offense ; the facts and circu
mstances of the case which led to the dismissal ;
and the impact of a reprosecution on the administ Discussing dismiassal under the
C.A. 8, U.S. v. Ray, 768 ration of this chapter and on the administration o Speedy Trial Act for delay between Judicial proceeding,
1985 COCAP F.2d 991 f justice . ” ) . filing of, and hearing on, motions. procedure
The Court reflected upon the extraordinary natur
e of the state ’s interest in Dostert v. Neely , supr
a : “ In declining to enjoin the imposition of the d
isciplinary suspension against the plaintiff , the c
ourt wishes to emphasize the extraordinary state i
nterest in disciplinary proceedings which affect s
tate judges . Disciplinary proceedings exist to vin
dicate the most fundamental of state interests , th
S.D. W. Va., Dostert v. e need for a fair and impartial administration of j
1982 COCAP Neely, 537 F. Supp. 912 ustice for the benefit of all the state ’s citizens . Discussing sanctions against judges. Discipline, judge
( 5 ) Respondent ’s conduct aforesaid constitute
d misconduct in office , in that said conduct was
clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice
within the provisions of article 6 , § 30 of the Mi
Mich., In re Hotchkiss, chigan Constitution of 1963 , as amended , and Adopting a statement of reprimand
1982 COCAP 415 Mich. 1101 GCR 1963 , 932.4 , as amended . against a judge. Discipline, judge
In Stovall v. Denno , 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct . 19
67 , 18 L.Ed .2 d 1199 ( 1967 ) , a majority of th
e United States Supreme Court agreed on the fact
ors which should inform a decision regarding retr
oactivity : “ The criteria guiding resolution of the
question implicate ( a ) the purpose to be served
by the new standards , ( b ) the extent of the relia
nce by law enforcement authorities on the old sta
ndards , and ( c ) the effect on the administration Judicial proceeding,
Pa., Commonwealth v. of justice . ” ( Footnote omitted . ) Id. , at 297 , 8 Reciting standards for retroactive powers &
1980 COCAP Miller, 417 A.2d 128 7 S.Ct . at 1970 . application. prerogatives
Wash., In re
Disciplinary Proceeding The Commission has held that Judge Staples ' act
Against Fred R. Staples, ions nevertheless do not fit within the " administr Allowing a judge to engage in limited
1986 COCAP 105 Wash. 2d 905 ation of justice " exclusion . We disagree . law reform efforts. Judicial conduct
Factors to be considered in determining whether
transfer is appropriate typically include whether t
he statute of limitations has oth erwise run , the c
onvenience of the parties and witnesses , and the
effect on the efficient and expeditious administra
tion of justice . E. g. , Sherar v. Harless , supra , Judicial proceeding,
S.D.N.Y., Wingate v. 561 F. 2d at 794 ; Eccles v. United States , 396 F powers &
1980 COCAP Harris, 501 F. Supp. 58 .Supp . 792 , 796 ( D.N.D. 1975 ) . Considering transfer. prerogatives
United States ex rel . Brown v. Fogel , 395 F. 2d
291 , 293 ( 4th Cir . 1968 ) ( for breach of condit
ion other than nonappearance , court may do all t Judicial proceeding,
C.A. 5, U.S. v. hat is appropriate to orderly progress of trial and Collecting citations supporting history powers &
1979 COCAP Williams, 594 F.2d 86 fair administration of justice ) . of criminalization of bail-jumping. prerogatives
The court may order a prepleading mental health
and physical examination of a defendant and a pr
epleading investigation by the Department of Pro
bation to provide material that would reasonably
aid in the administration of justice by facilitating
the plea bargaining process . ( People v Crosby ,
N.Y., People v. Scala, 87 Misc 2d 1079 , 1080 [ Sup Ct , Bronx County Judicial proceeding,
1985 COCAP 128 Misc. 2d 831 1976 ] . ) Discussing pretrial abilities of court. procedure
The doctrine of equitable estoppel is premised up
on principles of fair dealing and is designed to ai
d the law in the administration of justice where ,
without its aid , injustice might result . City & C
ounty of Denver v. Stackhouse , 135 Colo. 289 ,
Colo., Fanning v. 310 P. 2d 296 ( 1957 ) ; Corporation of Presiding Discussing doctrine estopping plaintiff
Denver Urban Renewal Bishop v. Board of County Commissioners , 689 from raising issue in separate action Judicial proceeding,
1985 COCAP Auth., 709 P.2d 22 P. 2d 738 ( Colo.App .1984 ) . that could have been raised in first. procedure
In scrupulously guarding this fundamental right ,
our Supreme Court has noted that : [ a ] jury is a
n integral part of the court for the administration
of justice and on elementary principles its verdict
must be obedient to the court ’s charge , based s
olely on legal evidence produced before it and en Judicial proceeding,
N.J., Battista v. Olson, tirely free from the taint of extraneous considerat powers &
1986 COCAP 213 N.J. Super. 137 ions and influences . Discussing juries. prerogatives
Therefore , Appellee asserts that the court can im
pose a default judgment by analogy to the interro
gatory statute , or in the alternative it is within th
e inherent power of the court “ to do all things th
at are necessary for the administration of justice
Okla., Amoco within the scope of its - Judicial proceeding,
Production Co. v. jurisdiction . ” Layman v. State , 355 P. 2d 444 ( Assessing whether default judgment powers &
1980 COCAP Lindley, 609 P.2d 733 Okl.Cr.App .1960 ) would be appropriate. prerogatives
The interest of the public in the fair and proper a
dministration of justice includes concerns that tri
als be conducted in an evenhanded manner ; that
the participants in the adversary process , includi
ng witnesses , be protected from unfair tactics ; a
nd that the courts maintain the integrity of the ju
Colo., Rodriguez v. dicial system and the highest ethical standards of
District Court, 719 P.2d the legal profession . James , 708 F. 2d 40 ; Garc Protecting privilege of communication
1986 COCAP 699 ia , 517 F. 2d 272 ; G. Lowenthal , supra , at 61 . of sitnesses with counsel. Procedure; policy
The hearing board concluded that the respondent
’s submission of false documents to the grievanc
e committee violated C.R.C.P. 241.6 ( 7 ) and D
R1-
102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violation of a disciplinary rule )
, DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( conduct involving dishonesty , f
raud , deceit or misrepresentation ) , and DR 1 -
Colo., People v. Yost, 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct that is prejudicial to the
1986 COCAP 729 P.2d 348 administration of justice ) . Recalling findings below. Discipline, Lawyer
Alternatively , the bar asserts that it adopted the
Rules under its authority to make regulations to a
id in the administration of justice ( Bus . & Prof.
Code , § 6031 ) and to ensure that persons admitt Recalling State Bar's justifications for
Cal., People v. Perez, 24 ed to the bar have received proper training ( see allowing supervised law students to Bar association
1979 COCAP Cal. 3d 133 Bus . & Prof. Code , § 6047 ) . participate in criminal matters. adopting rules
defendants EDWARD G. PARTIN , JACK P. F.
GREMILLION , JR. , HAROLD SYKES , BEN
TRANTHAM and CROCKETT CARLTON , u
nlawfully , willfully and knowingly did combine ,
conspire , confederate and agree together and wi
th each other and with their co-
conspirators , Claude W. Roberson , Mitchell Hu
sser and other unknown parties , to commit an of
fense against the United States , to -
wit , Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150
3 , that is to corruptly endeavor to influ ence , ob
struct and impede the due administration of justi
ce in the United States District Court for the Sout
hern District of Texas in that knowing that one C
laude W. Roberson was a material Government Judicial proceeding,
C.A. 5, U.S. v. Partin, witness at the trial of the criminal case , then pen powers &
1977 COCAP 552 F.2d 621 ding Restating the indictment. prerogatives
defendants EDWARD G. PARTIN , JACK P. F.
GREMILLION , JR. , HAROLD SYKES , BEN
TRANTHAM and CROCKETT CARLTON , u
nlawfully , willfully and knowingly did combine ,
conspire , confederate and agree together and wi
th each other and with their co-
conspirators , Claude W. Roberson , Mitchell Hu
sser and other unknown parties , to commit an of
fense against the United States , to -
wit , Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150
3 , that is to corruptly endeavor to influ ence , ob
struct and impede the due administration of justi
ce in the United States District Court for the Sout
hern District of Texas in that knowing that one C
laude W. Roberson was a material Government Judicial proceeding,
Mich., Falk v. State Bar witness at the trial of the criminal case , then pen powers &
1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 ding Influencing witness prerogatives
Public confidence in the fairness of the criminal j
ustice system and community participation in the
administration of justice are also critical by -
Mass., Commonwalth v. products of juries composed of a representative
Brown, 11 Mass. App. cross section of the community . People v. Wheel Discussing the proportionality Judicial proceeding,
1981 COCAP Ct. 288 er , 22 Cal . 3d 258 , 270 - 272 ( 1978 ) . requirements for juries. procedure
This is so because the mayor had the power to is
sue a warrant for the arrest of defendant to comp
el his appearance at a stated time by reason of th
e mayor ’s statutory powers enumerated in R. C.
1905.20 , relating to criminal matters which , int
er alia , provides : “ * * * The mayor shall award
Oh., Vill. Of Oakwood and issue all writs and process that are necessary
v. Wuliger, 69 Ohio St. to enforce the administration of justice througho Law enforcement;
1982 COCAP 2d 453 ut the municipal corporation . * * * ” Citing ordinance. Mayoral powers
Woven throughout our disciplinary cases involvi
ng attorneys is the thought that they occupy a spe
cial position because they are actively involved in
W. Va., Re: Bonn administering the legal system whose ultimate g
1980 COCAP Brown, 166 W. Va. 226 oal is the evenhanded administration of justice . Discussing the disciplinary system. Discipline, Lawyer
The fact that she chose instead to make her dema
nds in the midst of an already unstable , difficult
, and conceivably dangerous setting gives rise to
a reasonable inference that her conduct was calcu
Ill., People v. Siegel, 94 lated to embarrass , hinder or obstruct the court i Evaluating conduct of disruptive Judiical proceeding;
1983 COCAP Ill. 2d 167 n its administration of justice . individual disruptive incident
When a defendant , for one reason or another , re
fuses the assistance of counsel , trial courts are fa
ced with a difficult question : should the Court re
quire “ standby ” counsel , even against the wish
es of the defendant , in order to protect the defen
dant ’s basic rights ? There is no right to standby
counsel . Nevertheless , the appointment of stand
by counsel may benefit not only the defendant bu Judicial proceeding,
Del., Hicks v. State, 434 t also the Court , by insuring an orderly and fair a procedure, fairness
1981 COCAP A.2d 377 dministration of justice . Assessing doctrine. to defendant
The following assertion of Judge Will is not true
and to that extent creates an appearance of despe
ration in attempting to establish a point : “ ‘ The
Judicial Council ’s order was undeniably “ neces
sary . ... for the effective and expeditious adminis
tration of justice . ’ The chaos and hardship to liti
gants that would have ensued at the expiration of
the Marathon stay , had there been no uniform p
Bankr. N.D. Ill., In re rocedure for carrying forward the business of fed Judicial proceeding,
Wildman, et al., 30 B.R. eral bankruptcy jurisdiction , are universally ackn Judge's assessment of delegations to powers &
1983 COCAP 133 owledged . ” bankruptcy judges. prerogatives
( 2 ) On motion of the state , the court or a party ,
the court may continue the case when required i
n the administration of justice and the defendant
Wash., State c. Kelly, will not be substantially prejudiced in the present Ordering conditions for grants of Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP 32 Wash. App. 112 ation of his or her defense . continuances. procedure
C.A. 10, Plastic Considering that this case is on appeal from an or
Container Corp. v. der granting summary judgment , the court has , i
Continental Plastics of n furtherance of the proper administration of just
Oklahoma, 607 F.2d ice , decided the issue of collateral estoppel on th Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP 885 e merits of the case . Discussing procedure in patent cases. procedure
In Ex Parte Reynolds , supra , the progenitor of t
his line of cases , the court interpreted Robinson
as diminishing the importance of the “ reliance ”
prong of the tripartite test of Stovall and Desist , Judicial proceeding,
N.D. Tex., Bullard v. and virtually eliminating the third branch of the t powers &
1980 COCAP Estelle est ( effect on administration of justice ) . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives
For these reasons , this Court feels that unless rel
iance upon the old rule is so great that the accom
panying difficulties in the retroactive administrati Judicial proceeding,
E.D. Ill, Persico v. U.S. on of justice forbid ; it is important that some ave powers &
1977 COCAP DoJ, 426 F. Supp. 1013 nue of relief be made open to the petitioner . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives
There would also seem to be little impact on - Judicial proceeding,
C.A. 1, Fernandez v. the administration of justice whether or not Rick powers &
1982 COCAP Chardon, 681 F.2d 42 s is applied retroactively . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives
D. Mass., Lombard v.
Eunice Kennedy This is not a case , therefore , in which the unspe
Schriver Ctr. for Mental cified duration of M.G.L. c. 260 , § 7 ’s tolling p Assessing the effects of mental Judicial proceeding,
Retardation, Inc., 556 F. eriod would have pernicious consequences for th incompetence on state tolling powers &
1985 COCAP Supp. 677 e administration of justice . provision. prerogatives
Pa., In re Anonymous
No. 65 D.B. 75, 7 Pa.
D. & C.3d 519 . . . Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi Citing basis of liability for not
1977 COCAP BOARD nistration of justice . informing client and not filing action. Discipline, Lawyer
This court also has said that a minimal showing o
n the part of defendant serves the administration
of justice because it is much easier for defendant
than plaintiff to determine , for example , the abs
U.S. Claims, Park v. ence of defendant ’s witnesses and loss of defend Discussing showings for prejudicial Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP U.S., 10 Cl. Ct. 790 ant ’s documents . delay. procedure
By statute , the Supreme Court has " power and c
ontrol over attorneys and counsellors - at -
law and all persons practicing or assuming to pr
actice law ” in this State , and the Appellate Divi
sion is specifically " authorized to censure , susp
end from practice or remove from office any atto
rney and counsellor -
atlaw admitted to practice who is guilty of profe
ssional misconduct , malpractice , fraud , deceit ,
crime or misdemeanor , or any conduct prejudici
N.Y., In re Padilla, 67 al to the administration of justice ” ( Judiciary La Reiterating court's control of conduct
1986 COCAP N.Y.2d 440 w § 90 [ 2 ] ) . of lawyers. Discipline, Lawyer
As was said by this court in Southern Pacific Tra
Tex., State v. Rotello, nsportation Go . v. Stoot , 530 S.W. 2d at 931 : Affirming dismissal for prejudicial Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 671 S.W.2d 507 Delay haunts the administration of justice . delay. procedure
M.D. Fla., U.S. v. The court found that the district court ’s conclusi Judicial proceeding;
Lehder-Rivas, 667 F. on that publicity posed a serious and imminent th Discussing restraining order on powers &
1987 COCAP Supp. 827 reat to the administration of justice was correct . attorneys regarding media contacts. prerogatives
C.A. 9, U.S. v. Tertou, Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 742 F.2d 538 (footnote citing the Speedy Trial Act) procedure
Accordingly , and in furtherance of the
administration of justice , we conclude that a trial
Ct. Customs & Patent de novo is indicated in this case so that the
Appeals, ASG Indus. et merits of the issue of the amount of the net Considering impacts of recent Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP al. v. U.S., 610 F.2d 770 bounty herein involved can be fully developed . statutory amendments on procedure. procedure
We are entirely convinced that the ex parte dispo
sition of a criminal case out of court , or the disp
osition of any case for reasons other than an hone
N.C., In re Inquiry st appraisal of the facts and law as disclosed by t
Concerning Judge W. he evidence and the advocacy of both parties , wi Finding a violation of ethical rules in
Milton Nowell, 293 ll amount to conduct prejudicial to the administra judge's dispositoin of a case outside of Discipline, judicial;
1977 COCAP N.C. 235 tion of justice . normal procedures. procedure
Black ’s Law Dictionary , Rev. 4th Ed. , informs
us that such a body is ( p. 425 ) — “ A tribunal o
fficially assembled under authority of law at the a Public utility commission querying
Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, ppropriate , time and place , for the administratio attributes of a body that can
Petition of Myers, 46 n of justice . In re Carter ’s Estate , 254 Pa. 518 , constitutionally exercise judicial
1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 74 99 A. 58 . ” functions Broad description
On this occasion , however , Zywicki informed t
he police officer that a decision of the District of
Columbia Superior Court had narrowed the appli
cation of 40 U.S.C. § 13k to prohibit only conduc
t engaged in “ with the intent to disrupt or interfe
C.A.D.C., Grace v. re with or impede the administration of justice or
Burger, 214 U.S. App. with the intent of influencing the administration Recounting conduct of officers at Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP D.C. 375 of justice . ” Supreme Court. procedure
The trial court also found , pursuant to § 220. -
15 , that appellee had the capacity to understand
the proceedings against him ; his plea was knowi
C.A. 2, Lockett v. ngly and voluntarily made ; and acceptance of th
Montemago, 784 F.2d e plea was required in the interest of the public in Assessing court's finding that pleas Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP 78 the effective administration of justice . was voluntary. procedure
The findings in 9 ( b ) and ( e ) , which we have
N.C., In re Inquiry adopted , constitute conduct prejudicial to the ad
Concernign a Judge, ministration of justice that brings the judicial offi Assessing judge's involvement with
1983 COCAP 309 N.C. 635 ce into disrepute . female probation officer. Discipline, judge
The raising of revenue and the allocation of finan
cial resources among all government entities is in
itially and primarily the responsibility of the legis
lative branch of government , and sound public p
olicy considerations demand that when the judici
ary seeks to use its inherent power to overcome t
his peculiar prerogative of the Legislature , it be
held to a high standard and assume the burden of
showing that the funds sought to be compelled a
Tex., District Judges v. re essential for the holding of court , the efficient
County Judge, 657 administration of justice , or the performance of Reciting standard for judicial, as Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP S.W.2d 908 its constitutional and statutory duties . opposed to legislative, exactions. financing
" conduct that is prejudicial to the administration
N.Y., In re Newman, 64 of justice ” ( Code of Professional Responsibility Basis of liability for a lawyer's
19781 COCAP A.D.2d 145 , DR 1 - 102 , subd [ A ] , par [ 5 ] ) ; repeated violations of ethical rules. Discipline, lawyer
To permit the losing party in an ongoing depende
ncy custody dispute , as in the case before us , to
file a later adoption proceeding before a different
Arizona juvenile judge while the dependency pr
oceedings are being processed by another Arizon
Az., In re Appeal, 680 a juvenile judge would cause havoc to the orderly Discussing prudential concerns of lack Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP P.2d 163 administration of justice . of jurisdictional limits. procedure
Applying this interpretation of the 1831 Act to th
e facts in Nye , the Supreme Court noted that the
allegedly obstructive acts occurred more than on
e hundred miles from the court in which the unde
rlying action was pending , and concluded that su
ch actions were not “ so near thereto as to obstru Judicial proceeding;
S.D.N.Y., U.S. v. Reed, ct the administration of justice , ” and therefore c powers &
1985 COCAP 601 F. Supp. 685 ould not be punished by the offended court . Recalling criteria for "obstruction." prerogatives
C.A. 11, U.S. v.
1986 COCAP Petzold, 788 F.2d 1478 (footnote citing s. 1503) Obstruction statute Unclear
Fla., State v. Patrus, 46 This discretion should be exercised in fairness to Announcing bounds for courts' Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 19 all parties and the administration of justice . exercises of discretion. procedure
” Rather we think the language of these cases am
ply indicates that the purpose of the requirements
was to insure that dishonest , unscrupulous or co
rrupt individuals would not use their knowledge
W. Va., Puchinsky v. of the law to perpetrate fraud upon the unsuspect Citing, and then distinguishing, the
W. Va. Bd. of Law ing and unknowledgeable public or to obstruct th motivationd of bar rules from a
Examiners, 164 W. Va. e proper administration of justice for their own o lawyer's holding some or other
1980 COCAP 736 r their clients ’ benefit . political philosophy. Discipline, Lawyer
A court retains inherent power to grant relief to a
party who has been denied an opportunity to def
end in a divorce action under such circumstances
Minn., In re Marriage of as amount to a fraud on the court and the admini Judicial proceeding;
Nordmark, 388 N.W.2d stration of justice . Bredemann v. Bredemann , 2 powers &
1986 COCAP 436 53 Minn. 21 , 24 , 91 N.W. 2d 84 , 87 ( 1958 ) . Describing powers of the court. prerogatives
Typical of the reasoning of these courts is E. W.
Scripps Co. v. Fulton , supra , where the public i
nterest was stated as follows : “ It can never be cl
W. Va., State ex rel. aimed that in a democratic society the public has Judicial
The Herald Mail Co., no interest in or does not have the right to observ Discussing access of journalists to proceedings; access
1980 COCAP 165 W. Va. 103 e the administration of justice . judicial proceedings. to
In considering the serious request which was not
made lightly , we are guided by the rationale of
our Superior Court in Crawford ’s Estate , 307 P
a. 102 , 108 ( 1931 ) , wherein the court stated : “
Pa., Kaplan v. Due consideration should be given by him [ judg
Alleghany Co. Comm'rs, e ] to the fact that the administration of justice sh Assessing whether any county judge Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP 45 Pa. D. & C.3d 396 ould be beyond the appearance of unfairness . would be able to hear the instant case. procedure
Assessing denial of continuance when
pro se party repeatedly missed court
C.A. 9, U.S. v. Kelm, There is little doubt that Kelm ’s conduct hindere and imposed requirements for Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 827 F.2d 1319 d the “ efficient administration of justice . appointed counsel. procedure
D. Ark., Polson v. Nor does the public service or the administration Refusing absolute privilege to public
Davis, 635 F. Supp. of justice require complete immunity for such an officers in the context of terminating
1986 COCAP 1130 action . employment. Judicial proceeding
Stated as basis of liabiltiy under
professional conduct rules for fialures
Mo., In re Clinton to advise client of adverse judgment,
Adams, 737 S.W.2d ( d ) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the delay payment to government division,
1987 COCAP 714 administration of justice and acting against client's interests. Discipline, Lawyer
DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct prejudicial to the admin
Colo., People v. istration of justice ) ; and DR 6 - Reciting basis of liability resulting in
1983 COCAP Whitcomb, 676 P.2d 11 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( neglect of a legal matter ) . suspension of one year and one day. Discipline, Lawyer
It is in the best interests of the estate , the debtor
and the creditors to dismiss this Chapter 11 case
to effectuate a substantial savings in litigation an
d administrative expenses which would otherwis
e be incurred if it were to remain pending and to
Bankr. W.D. Ark., In re further serve the ends of the fair efficient and eff Restating rationale for dismissal Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP Westfall, 73 B.R. 186 ective administration of justice . offered below. procedure
C.A. 8, Banks v. Heun- To take such action could , in our judgment , esta
Norwood, 566 F.2d blish a precedent which would not advance the pr Characterizing the result of granting Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP 1073 oper administration of justice . relief sought for first time on appeal. procedure
In both instances , the trial judge ’s knowledge o
f “ the condition of his docket , fairness not only
to both parties but also to other litigants in his co
urt , and the need for an orderly and prompt admi
nistration of justice ” provides him with superior
La., Martin v. South ability to determine the terms of the dismissal .
Coast Corp., 356 So. 2d Malter v. McKinney , 310 So .2 d 696 , 698 ( La. Describing judges' latitiude in Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP 500 App . 1st Cir . 1975 ) . dismissals. procedure
Section 1503 also contains a broad omnibus clau
se which makes illegal any actions whereby a per
son who “ corruptly or by threats or force , or by
any threatening letter or communication , influen
ces , obstructs or impedes , or endeavors to influ
ence , obstruct , or impede , the due administrati
on of justice , shall be fined not more than $ 5,00
C.A. 6, U.S. v. 0 or imprisoned not more than five years , or bot (Cited in footnote of appeal reversing Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP Schneider, 771 F.2d 149 h . and granting new trial.) procedure
N.D. Ind., Naked City, Prosecutor Ryan corruptly obstructed and impede
Inc. v. Aregood, 667 F. d the due administration of justice in violation of (Appendix stating cause of action
1987 COCAP Supp. 1246 18 USC 1503 . from complaint.) Lawyer misconduct
Concomitantly , to promote and maintain the effi
cient administration of justice and the enforceabil
Pa., Pa. Labor Relations ity of their employees ’ contracts , the judges of t
Bd. v. Am. Federation he courts of common pleas must have input throu
of State…, 526 A.2d gh the county commissioners . Id. , 507 Pa. at 27 Judges must have collective barganing
1987 COCAP 769 9 , 489 A. 2d at 1329 - 1330 . input from county commissioners. Judicial conduct
It comprehends any act which is calculated to or t
ends to embarrass , hinder , impede , frustrate , o
r obstruct the court in the administration of justic
e , or which is calculated to or has the effect of le
ssening its authority or its dignity ; or which inter
feres with or prejudices parties during the course
of litigation , or which tends otherwise to bring t Judicial proceeding;
N.J., State v. Vasky, he authority or administration of the law into disr powers &
1985 COCAP 203 N.J. Super. 91 epute or disregard . Finding of contempt prerogatives
In determining whether to give a decision prospe
ctive or retrospective application , the purpose of
Az., In re Appeal in the decision , reliance on a prior rule of law , and Appeal from court order granting
Pima Cnty, 118 Ariz. the possible effect upon the administration of jus adoption and denying habeas as to two
1977 COCAP 127 tice are factors which must be considered . children. Law enforcement
That statute provides that a federal court has the
power to punish by fine or imprisonment such co
C.A. 3, Commonwealth ntempt of its authority as “ [ misbehavior of any Judicial proceeding;
v. Local Union 542, 552 person in its presence or so near thereto as to obs Underlying contempt order (on powers &
1977 COCAP F.2d 498 truct the administration of justice . ” appeal). prerogatives
This right may not be employed to thwart the ad Motion for continuance to employ
Ill., Peoplle v. Elder, 73 ministration of justice or to delay prosecution ind different attorney in case below Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 192 efinitely . implicating right to counsel. procedure
Finally , it does not serve the interests of the adm
inistration of justice to deny the making of a moti
on to dismiss when , as here , the affidavit in sup
N.Y., Lipman v. port of the motion to dismiss goes beyond mere c
Salsberg, 107 Misc. 2d onclusionary allegations of lack of proper service Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP 276 . Review of denial of motion to dismiss. procedure
In the instant case , the record fails to disclose th Judicial proceeding;
Oh., State v. Conliff, 61 at the statement constituted “ an imminent threat Underlying contempt finding (on powers &
1978 COCAP Ohio App. 2d 185 to the administration of justice . ” appeal). prerogatives
In addition , it was found that the respondent ’s
conduct was prejudicial to the administration of j
ustice and reflects his unfitness to practice law a
Colo., People v. nd was therefore in violation of DR1 — 102 ( A Grievance Committee's evalution of
1982 COCAP Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065 ) ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) . attorney's conduct. Discipline, Lawyer
The trial court , citing no common law authoritie
s , briefly adverted to the statute , but spoke main
C.A. 1, Del Rio v. ly of the duty of compensation carriers in particul
Northern Blower Co., ar , and the orderly process and administration of Lower court's assessment of
1978 COCAP 574 F.2d 23 justice in general . workmen's compensation scheme. Unclear
First , a criminal contempt is classically defined a
s an act which is calculated to embarrass , hinder Judicial proceeding;
, or obstruct a court in the administration of justi powers &
Fla., Dudley v. State, ce , or which is calculated to lessen its authority Underlying contempt order (on prerogatives;
1987 COCAP 511 So. 2d 1052 or dignity . appeal). contempt
By reason of the foregoing , respondent has negle
cted a legal matter entrusted to him in violation o
f The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsi
bility , Disciplinary Rule 6 -
101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ; engaged in conduct prejudicial t
o the administration of justice in violation of Dis
ciplinary Rule 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ; and engaged in conduct that adv
Fla., Bar v. Hoffer, 412 ersely reflects on his fitness to practice law in vio Bar official's evaluation of attorney's
1982 COCAP So. 2d 858 lation of Disciplinary Rule 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) . conduct (on reivew) Discipline, Lawyer
By resisting arrest , Williams threatened that tim
e-
tested yet fragile social balance whereby our elec
ted representatives provide laws for the good of s
ociety , and public officers to execute and enforc
e them , and under which respect and obedience
Pa., Commonwealth v. shown to officers discharging their lawful duties
Williams, 344 Pa. are as essential to the orderly administration of ju Evaluation of conduct (resisting
1985 COCAP Super. 108 stice as the laws themselves . arrest). Law enforcement
Mich., Falk v. State Bar In an integrated bar the compelling state interest i
1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 s the administration of justice . Court's assessment of policy aims. Bar generally
The appellant was held in contempt of court and
sentenced to five and one -
half months imprisonment under Subsection 3 o
f the Penal Contempt Statute which provides : Th
e power of the several courts of this Commonwe
alth to issue attachments and to inflict summary
punishments for contempts of court shall be restr Judicial proceeding;
icted to the following cases : ( 3 ) The misbehavi powers &
Pa., Commonwealth v. or of any person in the presence of the court , the Reciting statute in appeal from prerogatives;
1981 COCAP Reid, 494 Pa. 201 reby obstructing the administration of justice . criminal contempt. contempt
Conduct which falls short of reaffirming one ’s fi
tness for the high responsibilities of judicial offic
e constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administr
Ne., In re Complaint, ation of justice that brings the judicial office into Basis of liability in charges against
1984 COCAP 351 N.W.2d 693 disrepute . judge. Discipline, judge
A witness violates no duty to claim it , but one w
ho bribes , coerces , forces or threatens a witness
to claim it , or advises with corrupt motive the w Judicial proceeding;
itness to take it , can and does himself obstruct or Citing upholding of conviction under powers &
C.A. 4, U.S. v. Baker, influence the due administration of justice . 329 s. 1503, for inducing witness to use prerogatives;
1979 COCAP 611 F.2d 964 F. 2d at 443 . Amend. V privilege. Tampering
Accordingly , we conclude that the evidence esta Judicial proceeding;
blished beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant Affirming conviction either for powers &
Ill., People v. Page, 73 wilfully and knowingly interfered with the admi misleading court or causing delat, in prerogatives;
1979 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 796 nistration of justice . either case giving rise to liabiltiy. Tampering
Principles of finality , certainty , and the proper a
dministration of justice suggest that a decision on
ce rendered should stand unless some compelling Explaining doctrine back of question
S.C., Beall v. Doe, 281 countervailing consideration necessitates relitiga whether a party is precluded from Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP S.C. 363 tion . relitigating an issue with a nonparty. procedure
The Florida Bar in response submits that to grant
the petition would not adversely affect the purity
of the court system , hinder the administration of
Fla., Bar v. Ward, 366 justice , or adversely affect the confidence of the
1978 COCAP So. 2d 405 public in the legal profession . Petition to resign from bar. Discipline, lawyer
This court imposed a thirty -
day suspension , even though we concluded that
the attorney ’s conduct had perpetrated a fraud o
D.C., In re Hutchison, n the judicial system and compromised the admi Describing previous sanction on
1987 COCAP 534 A.2d 919 nistration of justice . lawyer. Discipline, lawyer
The administrative office of the courts was give
n authority to “ serve as an agency to apply for an
d receive grants or other assistance and to coordi
C.A. 5, Stegmaier v. nate or conduct studies and projects in connectio
Trammell, 597 F.2d n with the improvement of the administration of j
1979 COCAP 1027 ustice . Describing the duty of court officers. Judiciary generally
State v. Gregory , 66 N.J. 510 , 519 ( 1975 ) ( pr
ohibiting multiple prosecution for acts arising out
of same arrest under court ’s supervisory power
N.J., State v. Ramseur, to ensure fairness in the administration of justice Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 106 N.J. 123 , although rejecting constitutional attack ) ; Outlining court's doctrine. procedure
So , it is clear beyond any argument that the Res
pondent is guilty of Disciplinary Rule 1 -
102 “ Misconduct . ( A ) A lawyer shall not : ( 1
) Violate a Disciplinary Rule ; ( 5 ) Engage in co
Md., Attorney nduct that is prejudicial to the administration of j
Grievance Comm'n of ustice ; and ( 6 ) Engage in any other conduct tha
Md. v. Singleton, 532 t adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law . Upholding sanction of attorney in bar
1987 COCAP A.2d 157 ” proceeding. Discipline, lawyer
While we are sensitive to the fact that the efficie
nt administration of justice can not be subject to t
he whims and inordinate delays of litigants , and
are not convinced that the failure in this case of t
he plaintiff ’s new attorney to be prepared for tria
l could not have been avoided , there is nothing i
N.Y., Stock v. Stock, n this record to indicate bad faith on the part of t Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 127 A.D.2d 829 he plaintiff in seeking an adjournment . Reversing dismissal. procedure
Since defendant Donn persisted in his contempti
ble conduct despite the warnings of the Court , a
nd so misbehaved that in the presence of the Cou
rt he , Donn , outrageously obstructed the admini
stration of justice , the Court finds said Donn in c
ontempt of Court and he is ordered to be sentenc
ed to a term of six months , all as appears conclu Judicial proceeding;
sively in the transcript of Evidentiary Hearing , et powers &
C.D. Cal., U.S. v. Donn, al. , January 25 , 1982 , which is hereby incorpo prerogatives;
1982 COCAP 584 F. Supp. 525 rated herein and made part hereof . Contempt finding. Contempt
This court imposed a thirty -
day suspension , even though we concluded that
the attorney ’s conduct had perpetrated a fraud o
D.C., In re Hutchison, n the judicial system and compromised the admi
1986 COCAP 518 A.2d 995 nistration of justice . Recalling past sanction. Discipline, lawyer
Respondent ’s discussion of murdering another p
erson , raising a false claim of physical inability t
o stand trial , cocaine selling , and jumping bail c
onstituted unethical conduct prejudicial to the ad
ministration of justice , in violation of DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) and adversely reflecting on his fit
N.J., In re Mintz, 101 ness to practice law , in violation of DR 1 -
1986 COCAP N.J. 527 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) Disciplinary proceeding. Discipline, lawyer
London has not offered any reason why a fraudul
ent judgment given by a lawyer to his client does
not constitute an endeavor to impede the due ad Judicial proceeding;
ministration of justice other than the fact that the powers &
C.A. 11, U.S. v. obstruction occurred after the resolution of the la prerogatives;
1983 COCAP London, 714 F.2d 1558 wsuit . Appeal of conviction under s. 1503. Tampering
Although clearly inappropriate and ill -
advised , the question did not significantly disru
Pa., In re Campolongo, pt the proceedings and thus did not constitute an
1981 COCAP 435 A.2d 581 obstruction of the administration of justice . Reveral of contempt finding. Discipline, lawyer
It is precisely because “ the necessities of the ad
ministration of justice require such summary dea
ling . [ as ] a mode of vindicating the majesty of l
aw , in its active manifestation , against obstructi
on and outrage to it , ” Offutt v. United States , 3
48 U.S. 11 , 14 , 75 S.Ct . 11 , 13 , 99 L.Ed . 11 ,
16 ( 1954 ) , that the summary contempt power
has been upheld against due process attacks , see
, e. g. , Cooke v. United States , supra , 267 U.S.
at 534 , 45 S.Ct . 390 , 69 L.Ed . at 773 ; Ex part
e Terry , 128 U.S. 289 , 9 S.Ct . 77 , 32 L.Ed . 4 Judicial proceeding;
Pa., Commonwealth v. 05 ( 1888 ) , and we therefore decline to adopt ap powers &
Stevenson, 393 A.2d pellant ’s argument that summary adjudication is Assessing arguments on appeal of prerogatives;
1978 COCAP 386 per se unconstitutional . contempt finding. Contempt
A federal district court must be able “ to protect t
C.A. 1, Brockton he administration of justice by levying sanctions
Savings Bank v. Peat, in response to abusive litigation practices . ” Pent
Marwick, Mitchell & house International , Ltd. v. Playboy Enterprises , Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP Co., 771 F.2d 5 Inc. , 663 F. 2d 371 , 386 ( 2d Cir .1981 ) . Expounding doctrine. procedure
Permitting a defendant to proclaim his guilt in op Finding that guilty pleas waive all but
N.H., State v. Parkhurst, en court and still avoid conviction is incompatibl jurisdictional defects; remanding Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 121 N.H. 821 e with the sound administration of justice . defective guilty plea. procedure
La., State v. Williams,
Permitting a defendant
to proclaim his guilt in
open court and still
avoid conviction is
incompatible with the A juror ’s failure to attend court interferes with t
sound administration of he orderly administration of justice . See La.C.Cr Affirming trial judge's replacement of Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP justice . .P . arts. 17 , 20 , 21 . absent juror. procedure; juries
They are matters involving a serious and substant
ive evil — the imminent and substantial threat to
Va., Landmark the orderly administration of justice posed by the
Communications, Inc. v. premature disclosure of the confidential proceed
Commonwealth, 217 ings of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commiss Importance of confidentiality of
1977 COCAP Va. 699 ion . review of judges. Discipline, judges
Respondent did not advise [ C ] that the statute h
ad expired , nor what actions could be taken to pr
Pa., In re Anonymous otect his interest . It is charged that respondent ’s
No. 65 D.B. 75, action involved a violation of : a. D.R. 1 -
Disciplinary Board of 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) — Engage in conduct that is preju
the Supreme Court of dicial to the administration of justice . b. D.R. 1 -
1977 COCAP Pennsylvania 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) Board outlining basis of liability. Discipline, lawyer
E.D. Mich, Snider v.
Lone Star Art Trading Although not an entirely impossible mission , suc Judicial proceeding;
Co., Inc., 659 F. Supp. h a task would make the administration of justice Assessing the elaboration of RICO's application of
1987 COCAP 1249 by the Court an extremely arduous task test beyond its current scope. doctrine
Analysis Lifting the Stay for Cause : Administrat
ion of Justice 11 U.S.C. § 362 ( d ) states : On re
quest of a party in interest and after notice and a
hearing , the court shall grant relief from the stay
... such as by terminating , annulling , modifying
, or conditioning such stay — ( 1 ) for cause ... T
he Court has found as sufficient cause for modify
ing the stay in this case that the administration of
justice and the convenience of the parties is bett
er served by having the State court act as the one
Bankr. E.D. Mich., In re tribunal before which all claims , counterclaims , Outlining legal standard in bankruptcy Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP Rutter, 25 B.R. 244, or cross-claims may be heard . court. procedure
From the foregoing findings we now find that Re
spondent filed the lawsuit when he knew that his
action would merely serve to harass and maliciou
sly injure others , engaged in conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice , which adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law , and , by fil
ing a lawsuit against a judge for conduct occurrin
g in the performance of his judicial capacity , adv
Ind., In re Moody, 428 anced a claim which is unwarranted under existi
1981 COCAP N.E.2d 1257 ng law . Assessing complaint against attorney. Discipline, lawyer
Based on the facts outlined above , we agree with
the commission ’s determination that Lucas viol
ated the following provisions of the Iowa Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers : EC 1 -
5 ( requiring high standards of professional cond
uct ) ; DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violating disciplinary rule ) ; DR
1-
102 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( prohibiting conduct involving m
oral turpitude ) ; DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( prohibiting dishonesty , fraud , d
Ia., Committee on eceit or misrepresentation ) ; DR 1 -
Professional Ethics v. 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( prohibiting conduct prejudicial t
1987 COCAP Lucas, 420 N.W.2d 781 o the administration of justice ) ; Commission's findings (affirmed). Discipline, lawyer
Consequently , the Council concluded that “ the
uniform effective and expeditious administration
of justice within this Circuit requires that the atta
ched rule for the administration of the bankruptc
C.A. 6, White Motor y system in this Circuit be adopted by the Distric
Corp. v. Citibank, 704 t Courts .... ” Order of the Judicial Council of the Recalling Judicial Council, C.A. 6 Judicial council
1983 COCAP F.2d 254 Sixth Circuit , December 21 , 1982 . determination. determining rules
Nor is there the slightest reference in his remarks
to burdens on the administration of justice , to w
N.C., State v. Norville, asted court resources , or to the necessity of emp Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 321 N.C. 92 anelling another jury in the event of a mistrial . Upholding instructions of trial judge. procedure
Such proof might support a reasonable inference
that Negroes are excluded from juries for reasons
wholly unrelated to the outcome of the particular
case on trial and that the peremptory system is b
eing used to deny the Negro the same right and o
C.A. 8, Baker v. pportunity to participate in the administration of j Expositing rationale of peremptory Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP Wyrick, 547 F.2d 428 ustice enjoyed by the white population . challenges. procedure
Ala., Vienna v. Scott and 4 ) the effect on the administration of justice
Wetzel Services, Inc., of a retroactive application of the new rule of law Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 740 P.2d 447 . Discussing retroactivity standard. retroactivity
Mich., St. Bar
Grievance Reciting rules that govern professional
Administrator v. Del ( 5 ) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the a conduct in review of determinations
1979 COCAP Rio, 407 Mich. 336 dministration of justice . thereof. Discipline, lawyer
Out of a concern for the “ practical administratio
n of justice , ” we conclude , with the trial judge
Oh., St. v. Fox, 68 Ohio here , that not enough evidence was introduced t Affirming jury instructions of trial Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP St. 2d 53 o warrant the requested instruction . judge. procedure
In the letter , the movants renew their applicatio
n to withdraw the reference because this will furt
her the efficient administration of justice and con
tend that “ [ ijndeed , the practical consequence o
f the withdrawal of the reference is that it should
obviate the need for the prosecution and resolutio
S.D.N.Y., In re Lion n of appeals from the bankruptcy judge 's determ
Capital Group, 48 B.R. ination that the proceedings below are core proce Finding movants' motion Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 329 edings .... ” unreasonable, and so denying it. procedure
In State v. DeLomba , 117 R.I. 673 , 370 A. 2d 1273 ( 1977 ) , the Rhode Island supreme court , r
elying in part on Coleman , adopted the requirem
ent of either a grant of use and derivative use im
munity for testimony given at a probation revocat
ion hearing , or postponement of the revocation p
roceeding until after the criminal trial , on the rea
soning that “ the unfairness of the current practic
e , even if not so severe as to rise to the level of a
constitutional deprivation , is nevertheless so rea
l and substantial that it calls for action by us on p
ublic policy grounds and in furtherance of our res Resolving constitutional question,
Ala., McCracken v. ponsibility to assure a sound and enlightened ad raised below, of coordination of Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP Corey, 612 P.2d 990 ministration of justice . ” Id . at 1275 . probation and criminal proceedings. procedure
Inquiries would also promote the effective admin
istration of justice by resolving most conflict situ
Nev., Harvey v. State, ations at the earliest possible stage of the proceed Reversing and remanding for want of Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP 619 P.2d 1214 ings separate trials below. procedure
The Respondent objects to the finding that his co
nduct in refusing to produce the records was ‘ pr
ejudicial to the administration of justice ’ in viola
tion of DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) and ‘ conduct that adversely refle
Del., In re Kennedy, cts on his fitness to practice law ’ in violation of Requesting review of disciplinary
1982 COCAP 442 A.2d 79 DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) . determination below. Discipline, lawyers
We believe that the restrictive view to the contrar
y , that it can not , only encourages multiplicity o
Kan., Burnworth v. f litigation and waste in the administration of just Announcing rule for visitation and Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP Hughes, 234 Kan. 69 ice . child suppoer cases. procedure
The repeated assertions by Mr. Evans , even after
the dispositive approving opinion of the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on the very matters whi
ch Mr. Evans contends were erroneously decided
by the Magistrate , and his continued and unrele
nting groundless assertions that the Magistrate ac
ted out of bias , rather than in compliance with w
ell -
established rules of law , make it apparent that
Mr. Evans acted originally , and continues to act
C.A. 4, In re Evans, 801 , in a way that is prejudicial to the administration Recounting reasoning of judge in
1986 COCAP F.2d 703 of justice in violation of DR 1 -- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) disciplinary matter below. Discipline, lawyers
Such conduct is prejudicial to the administration
Ind., In re Carmody, of justice and reflects adversely on his fitness to
1987 COCAP 513 N.E.2d 649 practice law . Affirming disciplinary findings below. Discipline, lawyers
Furthermore , if the disqualification of one gover
nment attorney could serve as the predicate for th
D. Conn., U.S. v. e disqualification of the entire United States Atto
Curico, 608 F. Supp. rney ’s Office , the administration of justice woul Assessing and rejecting defendants' Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 1346 d be irreparably damaged . disqualification arguments. procedure
In summary , Richmond Newspapers does not se
rve to support defendant ’s demand that he be aw
arded a new trial because a trial judge in the inter
est of the fair administration of justice may impo
se reasonable limitations upon the access of the p
N.C., State v. Burney, ublic and the press to a criminal trial_U.S. at_n . Rejecting reasoning back of motion Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 302 N.C. 529 18,65 L. Ed .2 d at 992 , 100 S. Ct. at 2830 . for new trial. procedure
The waiver provision of § 455 ( e ) , which appli
es to the “ appearance ” of impropriety issues un
der § 455 ( a ) but not to any actual conflict of int
erest under § 455 ( b ) , reinforces our conclusion
that § 455 ( a ) is concerned with perceptions rat
C.A. 7, U.S. v. Murphy, her than actual defects in the administration of ju Expounding doctrine of waiver for Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 768 F.2d 1518 stice . potential judicial conflicts. procedure
The standard to be met before first amendment f
reedoms can be abridged is that the expression b
y the press must constitute “ ‘ an immediate , not
Fla., Sentinel Star Co. v. merely likely , threat to the administration of just Finding trial court was perfunctory in Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP Booth, 372 So. 2d 100 ice . denying press access. procedure
Texas counties perform a number of functions fo
r the state including the supervision of state electi
ons , the collection of state property taxes , the co
nstruction of state roads , bridges and ferries , an
N.D. Tex., Crane v. d the administration of justice . The Texas Supre
State, 534 F. Supp. me Court has emphasized that when counties act
1982 COCAP 1237 in certain capacities they are agents of the state . Law enforcement/policy. Broad description
Conn., State v. Such ineffective communication can not aid the
Gunning, 183 Conn. defendant , the state or the administration of justi Assessing police conduct in matter
1981 COCAP 299 ce . below. Law enforcement
However , the interest of comity and the efficient
administration of justice will best be served by a
C.A. 1, Feinstein v. voiding the duplication of administrative arrange
Mass. Gen. Hosp., 643 ments necessitated by such a requirement . 12 . S Jurisdictional concerns in handling Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP F.2d 880 eep . 882 , supra . 13 . medical malpractice claims. procedure
So serious a matter as the appointment of a recei
Cal., Cal-American ver should not be made without a full and comple
Income Property Fund te hearing unless the due administration of justic
VII v. Brown e clearly requires it . ” { Cohen v. Herbert ( 1960
Development Corp., 138 ) 186 Cal.App .2 d 488 , 495 [ 8 Cal.Rptr . 922 ] Clarifying procedural requirements Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP Cal. App. 3d 268 .) upon lower court. procedure
Despite the unfairness to litigants that sometimes
results , the doctrine of judicial immunity is thou
ght to be in the best interests of ‘ the proper admi
nistration of justice . .
. [ for it allows ] a judicial officer , in exercising t
he authority vested in him [ to ] be free to act up
W.D. Pa., Albright v. on his own convictions , without apprehension of
Albright, 463 F. Supp. personal consequences to himself . ’ Bradley v.
1979 COCAP 1220 Fisher , 13 Wall. , at 347 . Affirming judicial immunity. Judicial proceeding
[ T ] he desirability of permitting a defendant ad
ditional time to obtain private counsel of his choi
ce must be weighed against the public need for th
Pa., Commonwealth v. e efficient and effective administration of justice Announcing balancing considerations
1983 COCAP McCool, 457 A.2d 1312 . for finding counsel of one's choice. Judicial proceeding
This court reemphasized in People v. Shrum ( 1
957 ) , 12 Ill. 2d 261 , 265 , the belief that adequ
ate opportunity to defend is the first essential of t
rial fairness : “ Speedy administration of justice i
s desirable , but the desire for speed must not be
Ill., People v. Lott, 66 allowed to impinge upon the constitutional requir Finding unfair surprise on defense Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP Ill. 2d 290 ement of a fair opportunity to defend . ” counsel of unnoticed testimony. evidentiary issue
The exclusion of the occupational groups and of
women with young children rests upon a factual f
inding by this court that jury service by these gro
E.D. Va., U.S. v. ups would entail undue hardship , extreme incon
Computer Sci. Corp., venience or serious obstruction or delay in the fai Appeal based on defects in jury Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 511 F. Supp. 1125 r and impartial administration of justice . selection. jury
This discretionary power is considered basic to t
he police power function of governmental entitie
s and is recognized as critical to a law enforceme
nt officer ’s ability to carry out his duties . See A Referencing
BA Standards for Criminal Justice , Standard 1 - President's
4.1 ( 2d ed . 1980 ) ; President ’s Commission o Commission on Law
n Law Enforcement and Administration of Justic Enforcement and the
Fla., Everton v. Willard, e , The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 103 Administration of
1985 COCAP 468 So. 2d 936 - 06 ( 1967 ) . Apprising duties of police officers. Justice
t stake is the honor of the government ^ ] public
confidence in the fair administration of justice , a
nd the efficient administration of justice . . .
Cal., People v. Sanders, . ’ [ Citations . ] ” ( People v. Mancheno , supra ,
1987 COCAP 191 Cal. App. 3d 79 32 Cal .3 d at p. 866 . ) Review of broken plea agreement. Law enforcement
In Greenfield , supra , an attorney was suspended
from practice for three years for professional mi
sconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administr
ation of justice . After a judge had denied the att
orney ’s motion in a pending action , Greenfield ,
along with another attorney , Rothstein , wrote t
wo letters to the judge accusing him without any
basis in fact of misconduct in office . The attorne
ys also prepared and circulated letters and affidav
its concerning the alleged misconduct to the presi
ding judge of the court , as well as the Governor ,
C.A. 4, In re Evans, 801 the District Attorney , and the Judicial Conferen Collecting precedent to uphold instant
1986 COCAP F.2d 703 ce . disciplinary finding. Discipline, lawyer
In passing the Act , Congress sought to promote
not only the defendant ’s right to a speedy trial ,
C.A. 11, U.S. v. but also the public ’s interest in the efficient adm Legislative history of Speedy Trial Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP Gonzalez, 671 F.2d 441 inistration of justice . Act. procedure
Cal., Cooper v. Cnty of Rationale for lower court's strict
Los Angeles, 69 Cal. The principle is founded upon a need for judicial compliance with instructions on Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP App. 3d 529 economy in the administration of justice . remand. procedure
In broader terms , the statute ’s purposes go beyo
nd protection of juvenile privacy to encompass th
e Státe ’s interest in sound and orderly administr
ation of justice ; ipost important , the statute help
Mass., Globe s obtain just convictions for the types of crimes f
Newspaper Co. v. rom which the victims had often suffered at the h Expounding policy back of statute
Superior Court, 379 ands of the criminal justice system , while their a limiting press access to some trials Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP Mass. 846 sssail - ants had often gone free . while reviewing the same. media access to
Cal., In re Marriage of We also note the immense burden on the adminis
Lee, 124 Cal. App. 3d tration of justice in our civil courts were such reli Rejecting fully retroactive application Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 371 tigation permitted . of new rule. retroactivity
“ We have given complete retroactive effect to t
he new rule , regardless of good -
faith reliance by law enforcement authorities or t
he degree of impact on the administration of justi
ce , where the ‘ major purpose in new constitutio
nal doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the crimi
nal trial that substantially impairs its truth -
finding function and so raises serious questions
about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials
..
. Williams v. United States , 401 U.S. 646 , 653 ,
Colo., People v. Hardin, 91 S.Ct . 1148 , 1152 , 28 L.Ed .2 d 388 ( 1971 Explaining doctrine concerning Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP 607 P.2d 1291 ) retroactive application. retroactivity
The fires which it kindles must constitute an im Assessing when language rises to
Ark., Clark v. State, 291 minent , not merely a likely , threat to the admini contempt in review of contempt Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP Ark. 405 stration of justice . conviction. Contempt
We have denied broader retroactive application o
f a new rule going to defendant ’s right to a fair tr
ial on grounds of reasonable reliance by law enfo
Ala., Farleigh v. rcement officials on the old rule and potential im
Anchorage, 728 P.2d pact on the administration of justice . See Lauder Discussing retroactive application of a Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP 637 dale , 548 P. 2d at 383 . new rule. retroactivity
Both the court and the prosecuting attorney may
well decline to accept such plea in cases where th
e due administration of justice might be imprope
rly affected , for when the plea is accepted it is ac
cepted with all the implications and reservations
which under the law and accurate pleading apper
tain to that plea . ” Winesett v. Scheldt , Comr . o Discussing doctrine back of plea of
N.C., N.C. St. Bar v. f Motor Vehicles , 239 N.C. 190 , 194 - nolo contendere in remanding and
1977 COCAP Hall, 293 N.C. 539 95 , 79 S.E. 2d 501 , 504 - 505 ( 1954 ) . denying state bar summary judgment. Judicial proceeding
The basic rationale for the exceptions related to t
he administration of justice is that the “ unhinder
ed and untrammeled functioning of our courts is
part of the very foundation of our constitutional d
D.D.C., Laker Airways emocracy , ” for it is clear that when a court is pr Explaining the rationale of antisuit
Ltd. V. Pan Am. World evented by outside pressure or other interference injunctions to evaluate whether
Airways, Inc., 604 F. from adjudicating claims between litigants before defendants were interfering with
1984 COCAP Supp. 280 it , the rule of law is significantly impaired . administration of justice. Judicial proceeding
Reciting rules in review of erroneous
Criminal contempt consists of conduct that obstr dismissal for supposed lack of
Colo., People v. Barron, ucts the administration of justice or tends to brin jurisdiction over matter brought by Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 677 P.2d 1370 g the court into disrepute . information. contempt
For the reasons we have expressed with respect t
o our conclusion that the conduct involved here d
id not fall below an acceptable standard for the fa
ir and honorable administration of justice , we co
nclude that the conduct was not shocking and tha
Ala., Guidry v. State, t judicial integrity does not require suppression o
1983 COCAP 671 P.2d 1277 f the fruits flowing from it . Explaining the exclusionary rule. Law enforcement
Finally , we believe retroactive application of the
Az., State c. Hooper, Chapple rule would have an undesirable effect up Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 703 P.2d 482 on the administration of justice Discussing retroactivity retroactivity
Congress had , however , sought to determine an
appropriate fee for jukeboxes for nearly 20 years
before settling on the figure in the Act . See I Co
C.A.D.C., Nat'l Cable pyright Law Revision : Hearings on H.F. 2223 B
Television Ass'n v. efore the Subcomm . on Courts , Civil Liberties , Referencing House
Copyright Royalty and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on
Tribunal, 223 U.S. App. Comm . on the Judiciary , 94th Cong. , 1st Sess . Legislative history of copyright Admininistration of
1982 COCAP D.C. 65 380 provision. Justice
The Supreme Court ’s test for whether a “ new r
ule ” in the area of criminal procedure is to be ret
roactively applied calls for the consideration of th
ree criteria : “ ( a ) the purpose to be served by th
e new standards , ( b ) the extent of the reliance b
y law enforcement authorities on the old standard
s , and ( c ) the effect on the administration of jus
C.A. 5, Chapman v. tice of a retroactive application of the new standa Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP U.S., 547 F.2d 1240 rds . ” Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
As the Supreme Court in Bertero v. National Ge
neral Corp , supra , 13 Cal .3 d at pages 50 -
51 , said : “ The malicious commencement of a
civil proceeding is actionable because it harms th
Cal., Camarena v. e individual against whom the claim is made , an
Sequioa Ins. Co., 190 d also because it threatens the efficient administr Rejecting argument for elimination of Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP Cal. App. 3d 1089 ation of justice . liability for malicious prosecution. procedure
These judicial officers are necessary for the prop
er administration of justice , and we recommend
Fla., In re Certificate, they be made permanent and funded by the state Recommending creation of new state
1985 COCAP 467 So. 2d 286 . judges. Judicary generally
Society wins not only when the guilty are convict
ed but when criminal trials are fair ; our system o Reversing convictions because of
C.A. 4, U.S. v. f the administration of justice suffers when any a government's introduction of dubious Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP Carvalho, 742 F.2d 146 ccused is treated unfairly . evidence. evidentiary issue
Under this subsection , allegedly contemptuous c
onduct will not justify imposition of summary cri
Pa., Commonwealth v. minal contempt except where it causes an obstru Announcing rule in overturning Judicial proceeding;
1978 COCAP Garrison, 478 Pa. 356 ction of the administration of justice . contempt conviction. Contempt
C.A. 4, U.S. v. This “ natural consequence , ” the government co
Neiswender, 590 F.2d ntends , would have obstructed the due administr Government's contentions regarding Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP 1269 ation of justice . , mens rea for an obstruction charge. Tampering
The physician -
patient privilege thus did not bar this testimony ,
and the court was not required as a prerequisite t
N.C., Wright v. Am. o its admission to find that disclosure of the infor
Gen. Life Ins. Co., 59 mation was “ necessary to a proper administratio Rejecting challenges to introduction of Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP N.C. App. 591 n of justice . ” evidence. evidentiary issue
The court weighed the above factors and determi
ned that not only would it penalize law enforcem
ent agents who had acted in accord with the pres
ent state of the law , it also would amount to an o
Ill., People v. Laws, 82 verwhelming burden on the administration of jus Recalling denial of retroactive effect
1980 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 417 tice . for impacts on law enforcement. Law enforcement
It is also charged that , by the foregoing acts , th
e Respondent violated Supreme Judicial Court R
ule 3:17 ( 2 ) , in that he engaged in misconduct i
n office and conduct prejudicial to the administra
Mass., In re Bonin, 375 tion of justice which brings the judicial office int Recalling charge in disciplinary
1978 COCAP Mass. 680 o disrepute . hearing of judge before another court. Discipline, judge
E.D. Pa., Stevens Severance of this action into two actions and tran
Yachts of Annapolic, sfer of the cases to Texas and the Virgin Islands r
Inc. v. Am. Yacht espectively is not in the interest of the administra
Charters, Inc., 571 F. tion of justice if a forum can be found in which a Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP Supp. 467 ll claims can be litigated simultaneously . Refusing motion to sever. procedure
The rules of this court are designed to effectuate
the orderly administration of justice and do not c
Minn., Krug v. Indep. ontrol its jurisdiction , for it retains the constituti Allowing appeal where defendant
Sch. Dist. No. 16, 293 onal power to hear and determine , as a matter of could have raised all issues on appeal Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP N.W.2d 26 discretion , any appeal in the interest of justice of first judgment. procedure
The concurrence argued that neither history , nor
the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus , nor the
desired prophylactic utility of the exclusionary r
ule as applied in Fourth Amendment claims , nor
any sound reason relevant to the administration
of justice justified a federal court , on collateral r
eview of a state court conviction , to review asser
ted Fourth Amendment claims with the applicati
on of the exclusionary rule in precisely the same
C.A. 4, Doleman v. manner as it would or could have been utilized o Discussing the contrary view of the Judicial proceeding;
1978 COCAP Muncy, 579 F.2d 1258 n direct review . concurrence. procedure
Law 43 , which as we know establishes the integr
ated bar of Puerto Rico , charges the Colegio wit
D. P.R., Schneider v. h the duty of “ cooperating ] in the improvement
Colegio De Abogados of the Administration of Justice [ and ] to render
De Puerto Rico, 565 F. such reports and give such advice as the Govern Describing the nonjudicial powers of
1983 COCAP Supp. 963 ment may require of it . ” lawyers and the bar. Judicary generally
Both August and Bogoff were convicted of consp Describing indictments for
iring to defraud the United States of the due adm interference with blind draw system in
C.A. 6, U.S. v. August, inistration of justice , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § bankruptcy court and influence clerk
1984 COCAP 745 F.2d 400 371 ( 1982 ) ( Count One ) . of court in duties. Judiciary generally
This court can not sanction the frustration of its o
rder ( in this case a consent order ) by permitting
a post-judgment invocation of the attorney -
N.J., Fellerman v. client privilege to unduly interfere with and restr
Bradley, 191 N.J. ict the proper administration of justice which it is Rejecting postjudgment assertion of Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP Super. 73 entrusted to foster . attorney client privilege. procedure
1 Rule 4:01 , § 12 ( 2 ) , inserted by 365 Mass. 696 ( 1974 ) , reads as follows : “ The term ‘ serio
us crime ’ shall include ( a ) any felony , and ( b )
any lesser crime ( involving conduct of an attorn
ey demonstrating unfitness to practice as a lawye
r ) , a necessary element of which , as determine
d by the statutory or common law definition of su
ch crime , includes interference with the administ
ration of justice , false swearing , misrepresentati
on , fraud , wilful failure to file income tax return Citing in footnote the relevant rule
s , deceit , bribery , extortion , misappropriation , supporting reversal of judgment below
Mass., In re Alter, 389 theft , or an attempt or a conspiracy , or solicitati and two years' suspension, as per the
1983 COCAP Mass. 153 on of another , to commit a ‘ serious crime . ’” Board's recommendation. Discipline, lawyer
One situation where the proper administration of
Wash., State v. Jones, justice requires the discharge of a jury is where t Reviewing propriety of discharge of Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP 97 Wash. 2d 159 hat jury is unable to agree on a verdict . jury. jury
We agree with the well -
reasoned Wesley and Lester decisions holding th
at it is entirely proper to charge defendants under
§ 1503 with interfering with the due administrati
C.A. 7, U.S. v. on of justice when the conduct of the defendant r Rejecting appellants' contention that Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809 elates to tampering with a witness . they were improperly charged. witness tampering
Courts have inherent power in the interest of the
D. Nev., In re Santa orderly administration of justice and under Rule
Barbara …, 94 F.R.D. 41 ( b ) , FRCP , to dismiss for disobedience of it Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP 105 s orders . Outlining remedial options. procedure
Postponement of cases from dates scheduled for
trial is one of the major factors contributing to de
Md., St. v. Hicks, 285 lay in the administration of justice , civil as well Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP Md. 310 as criminal . Discussing legislative history delay of
Both the Master and the DRB found that respond
ent violated DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 3 ) , which provides that a lawyer sha
ll not “ [ e ] ngage in illegal conduct that adversel
y reflects on his fitness to practice law ; ” DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 4 ) , which provided that a lawyer sh
all not “ [ ejngage in conduct involving dishonest
y , fraud , deceit or misrepresentation ; ” and DR
1-
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , which provided that a lawyer sh Outlining lawyer's complicity as
N.J., In re Rigolosi, 107 all not “ [ e ] ngage in conduct that is prejudicial assessed in bribe in trial and Board
1987 COCAP N.J. 192 to the administration of justice . ” review below. Discipline, lawyer
The Eleventh Circuit rejected Silverman ’s argu
ment stating : “ Silverman ’s proposed instructio
n incorrectly explained ‘ specific intent ’ : it plac
ed the burden on the government to prove that th
e purpose and object of Silverman ’s endeavor w
C.A. 7, U.S. v. Machi, as to influence or obstruct due administration of j Rejecting intent as mens rea in Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 811 F.2d 991 ustice . obstruction. witness tampering
[ I ] t wholly fails to take into account the enorm
Mo., State v. Butler, ous societal cost of excluding truth in the search Explaining the inevitable discovery Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 676 S.W.2d 809 for truth in the administration of justice . doctrine. procedure
Just as important as the issue of prejudice is that
of the efficient administration of justice . In parti
cular , we question the traditional assumption tha
E.D.N.Y., U.S. v. Gallo, t denial of severance in cases such as this promot Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 668 F. Supp. 736 es effi ciency . Assessing motion for severance. procedure
By reason of the foregoing Paragraph A , ( 1 ) yo
u have engaged in willful misconduct relating to
your official duty and persistent and public cond
La., In re Whitaker, 463 uct preju dicial to the administration of justice th Violation of ethical rules in practice of
1985 COCAP So. 2d 1291 at brings the judicial office into disrepute , law by a sitting judge. Discipline, judge
We have weighed the contesting views of the par
ties in this matter and conclude that the administr
ation of justice will best be served in the circums
tances by the court ’s exercise of its discretion to
permit defendant to except to the trial judge ’s de
Ct. of Claims, John M. cisión consisting of his findings , opinion , and c Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP Grieg, 224 Ct. Cl. 617 onclusion of law . Explaining exercise of discretion. procedure
The second and third factors to be considered un
der the three -
prong test for retroactivity can be dealt with toge
ther , since , as the Court noted in Hampton , sup
ra , " the amount of past reliance will often have
Mich., People v. Rice, a profound effect upon the administration of justi Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP 101 Mich. App. 1 ce ” . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
He also contends that his suspension from office
would impose a burden on other judges who will
be called upon to handle the caseload in the Eight
Ne., In re Complaint, h Judicial District and would perhaps result in de Exceptions of judge to suspension
1984 COCAP 351 N.W.2d 693 lays in the administration of justice . from office. Discipline, judge
See Award of Attorneys ’ Fees Against the Feder Referring to House
al Government : Hearings before the Subcommitt Subcommittee on
C.A.D.C., Action on ee on Courts , Civil Liberties and Administration Courts, Civil
Smoking and Health v. of Justice of the House Committee on the Judici Liberties and
Civil Aeroanutics Bd., ary , 96th Cong. , 2d Sess . 32 ( 1980 ) ( testimo (collecting sources discussing fee Administration of
1984 COCAP 724 F.2d 211 ny of Sen. DeConcini ) awards to attorneys) Justice
This general rule , rather than depending upon an
R.I., JWA Realty v. City y fundamental principle of the law of evidence , i
of Cranston, 399 A.2d s designed to expedite the orderly administration Discussing doctrine back of Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP 479 of justice in eminent domain proceedings . evidentiary rules. procedure
Additionally , in view of the mass of evidence in
the instant case , the efficient administration of j
Mo., State v. Garrette, ustice was served by trying all counts of the ame Upholding finding that all counts were Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 699 S.W.2d 468 nded information at one time part of a common scheme. procedure
At least in the limited context of sentencing , the
courts can recognize this inherent institutional bi
Mt., State v. Fitzpatrick, as and the debilitating effect that it has on the ad Discussing means to limit vindicitive Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP 186 Mont. 187 ministration of justice . sentencing. procedure
Respondent was found guilty of violating DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , conduct prejudicial to the admin
istration of justice , although the Committee state
d that it felt “ considerable empathy for the respo
Az., In re Riley, 142 ndent in the circumstances in which these statem Basis of liability under conduct rules
1984 COCAP Ariz. 604 ents were made for statements to reporters. Discipline, lawyer
Here , substitution was a matter of necessity , w
Oh., State v. McKinley. here the due administration of justice made it im Finding no error in service of Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP 7 Ohio App. 3d 255 perative , and no prejudice resulted . substitutte judge. procedure
The Supreme Court stated in Santobello v. New
York , 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct . 495 , 30 L.Ed .2
d 427 ( 1971 ) , that “ the disposition of criminal
charges by agreement between the prosecutor an
U.S. Army Ct. Crim. d the accused , sometimes loosely called ‘ plea b
Rev., U.S. v. Lay, 10 argaining , ’ is an essential component of the ad Laying doctrinal background for Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP M.J. 678 ministration of justice . instant analysis of plea bargains. procedure
The Court is of the opinion that the question and
opinion contained in the Amended Order of Clari
fication ( a copy of which is attached hereto and i
s incorporated by reference [ see preceding order
] ) involve issues of statewide application , whic
Fla., St. v. Johnson, 8 h are of great public importance and will affect th Court's order setting standards for
1984 COCAP Fla. Supp. 2d 116 e uniform administration of justice in this state . roadside intoxication tests. Law enforcement.
Neither the insurance companies nor their insure
ds , the employers , are officers of the legal syste
m , nor , unlike lawyers , are they governed by a
code of conduct casting upon them duties with re
Fla., Bammac, Inc. v. spect to the administration of justice beyond that Rejecting attempts of attorneys to Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP Grady, 500 So. 2d 274 required of the ordinary citizen . insinuate themselves as parties. procedure
N.J., Kerr Steamship And “ secondly the false swearing must have obs
Co., Inc. v. John D. tructed or tended to obstruct the administration o
Westhoff. Jr., 204 N.J. f justice ... It is the obstruction of judicial power Reciting legal standards in review of Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP Super. 300 which makes it contempt . ” contempt finding. Contempt
( a ) Whenever it appears to the superior court fo
r any judicial district that the administration of ju
stice requires an investigation to determine whet
her or not there is probable cause to believe that
a crime or crimes have been committed within th
e judicial district , said court may order an inquir
Conn., In re y to be made into the matter , to be conducted be
Investigation …, 4 fore any judge , state referee , or any three judges Reciting statute back of investigatory
1985 COCAP Conn. App. 544 of said court designated by it abilities. Law enforcement
In the case of Tafaro ’s Investment Company , In
c. v. Division of Housing Improvement , et al , 2
61 La. 183 , 259 So .2 d 57 ( La. 1972 ) the Loui
siana Supreme Court discussed the difference bet
ween the legislative and judicial functions of pub
lic bodies stating that when a judicial function is
La., Corcoran v. Parish involved , an analogy to judicial process is made
of Jefferson, 405 So. 2d and the procedural safeguards developed in the a Analysis of judicatory hearings at the Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 667 dministration of justice must be observed . Parish level. procedure
Suffice it to say that , in dealing with such a litig
C.A.D.C., Urban v. ant , the court “ has an obligation to protect and p
United Nations, 768 reserve the sound and orderly administration of j Outlining appropriate response to Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP F.2d 1497 ustice "prolific pro se litigants." procedure
Retroactive application of the Fountain policy wo
Mich., People v. Young, uld have an adverse effect on the administration Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 410 Mich. 363 of justice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
The footnote in Richmond Newspapers , Inc. v.
Virginia , 448 U.S. 555 , 100 S.Ct . 2814 , 65 L.
Ed .2 d 973 ( 1980 ) , to which the court made re
ference in Romano , explicitly recognizes that a t
rial judge may , “ in the interest of the fair admin
istration of justice , impose reasonable limitation
s on access to a trial ” just as " a government ma
E.D.N.Y., Latzer v. y impose reasonable time , place and manner rest
Abrams, 602 F. Supp. rictions upon the use of the streets in the interest Discussing limitations on press access Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 1314 of such objectives as the free flow of traffic . ” to trials. media access to
The indictment charges that Gaston “ did wil -
fully and knowingly corruptly endeavor to influe
nce Johnny Self , a witness before the said Grand
Jury , [ investigating alleged violations of the fal
se claims and false statements laws ] and thereby
corruptly endeavor to influence , obstruct and im
pede the due administration of justice ... [ in that
Gaston ] urged and advised Johnny Self to give f
C.A. 5, U.S. v. Gaston, alse testimony before said Grand Jury in relation Introducing the issue before taking it
1979 COCAP 608 F.2d 607 to the aforesaid violation . ” up on appeal. Judicial proceeding
The forum non conveniens doctrine is equitable i
n nature ( Bell v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co
. ( 1985 ) , 106 Ill. 2d 135 , 146 ; People ex rel .
Atchison , Topeka & Santa Fe Ry . Co. v. Clark (
Ill., Timothy Myers v. 1957 ) , 12 Ill. 2d 515 , 520 ) and allows courts t
Bridgeport Machines o strike a balance between the convenience of the
Div. of Textron, Inc., litigants and the efficient administration of justic
1986 COCAP 113 Ill. 2d 112 e. Discussing state of doctrine. Judicial proceeding
After overruling the motions the court stated ( 1 )
that legislative continuances , “ in this particular
case ” would violate Article I , § 13 , Texas
Constitution providing that all courts shall be
open , and every person for an injury done him ,
in his lands , goods , person or reputation , shall
have remedy by due course of law , ( 2 ) that the
statute providing for legislative continuances was
a “ self serving law passed by the legislators for
their own self preservation , ” and ( 3 ) the said
Tex., Collier v. Poe, 732 motions for continuance interfere “ with the Recalling proceedings below in Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP S.W.2d 332 orderly administration of justice . ” mandamus action. procedure
When a patient and understanding judge gives ev
ery consideration to a defendant ’s change of pos
ition the day before ' trial and the defendant atte
Wyo., Osborn v. State, mpts to mock the administration of justice , there Evaluating procedural decisions Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP 672 P.2d 777 is no abuse of discretion . below. procedure
Consequently , the present case is one in which t
he defendant ’s right to be free from repeated tria
ls is outweighed by the public ’s interest in the ad
ministration of justice , and we find defendant ’s
double jeopardy challenge without merit and ove
1981 COCAP N.C., State v. Simpson rruled . Overruling double jeopardy challenge. Judicial proceeding
Questions would thus arise in numerous other cir
cumstances as to which time computation rule to
apply ; the efficient administration of justice requ
Bankr. E.D. Mich., In re ires that the Court and counsel look to one rule fo
Miramar, Inc., 70 B.R. r time computation in bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Explaining rejection of movant's Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 32 Rule 9006 . position. procedure
While the federal courts in the District of Colum
bia are called upon to handle a much larger perce
ntage of FOIA litigation and are therefore perhap
s more overburdened by in camera review in suc
h cases than most courts , see Weissman v. Centr
al Intelligence Agency , 565 F. 2d 692 , 697 n. 1
1 ( D.C.Cir . 1977 ) , this Court has recently enc
D. Del., Coastal Gas ountered a disturbing increase in requests for in c
Station Corp. v. Dept. of amera review in nonFOIA litigation which simila Discussing rationale for burden of
Energy, 495 F. Supp. rly threatens to strangle the administration of just government to demonstrate a Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP 1172 ice in this District . document's exemption from FOIA. procedure
However , when the physical or mental condition
of the patient is at issue in such action , suit or p
roceeding or when a court in the exercise of soun
d discretion , deems such disclosure necessary to
the proper administration of justice , no informat
ion communicated to , or otherwise learned by , s
uch physician in connection with such attendance
Me., State v. Gatcomb, , examination or treatment shall be privileged an Judicial proceeding;
1978 COCAP 389 A.2d 22 d disclosure may be required . Discussing limits of privilege. procedure
However , a judge may also , through negligence
or ignorance not amounting to bad faith , behave
in a manner prejudicial to the administration of j Outlining bases of a judge's liability as
N.C., In re Inquiry …, ustice so as to bring the judicial office into disrep against canons and ethical
1978 COCAP 295 N.C. 291 ute . responsibilities Judicial conduct
The waiver rule , as other like rules of procedure
, finds its justification upon the interest of a fair ,
Ill., People v. Friesland, orderly and expeditious administration of justice Finding no facial constitutional issue Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 109 Ill. 2d 369 . in waiver of appeal procedure
Like the United States Supreme Court , Californi
a courts use the following criteria to determine w
hether a new rule of decisional law in criminal ca
ses should be applied retroactively : ( 1 ) the purp
ose of the new rule , ( 2 ) the extent of the relianc
e by law enforcement authorities on the old rule ,
Cal., People v. Cooper, and ( 3 ) the effect on the administration of justi Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP 94 Cal. App. 2d 672 ce of retrospective application of the new rule . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
As we have seen , all of the duties pertaining to t
he office of superior court clerk , whether essenti
al to the office or specifically prescribed by statut
Cal., Price v. Sup. Ct. e , are ministerial functions necessarily subject to
Madera Cnty, 186 Cal. the control of the judges of the court so far as es Reviewing behavior of court
1986 COCAP App. 3d 156 sential to the proper administration of justice . personnel. Judiciary generally
The power that a court has over its judgments an
d process notwithstanding , it is equally well esta
blished that , in the interests of orderly administr
ation of justice , Judges as a general rule should
not disturb , vacate , reconsider or modify determ
N.Y., People v. Varela, inations of a Judge of concurrent jurisdiction ( 28 Outlining appropriate bounds of Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 124 Misc. 2d 992 NY Jur 2d , Courts and Judges , § 86 , p 153 ) . discretion in bail remission. procedure
The district court ’s actions in this case to select
the jury from the Green Bay division only is gove
rned by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure which states in part : The court shall f
ix the place of trial within the district with due re
C.A. 7, U.S. v. gard to the convenience of the defendant and the
Balistrieri, 778 F.2d witnesses and the prompt administration of justic Reviewing district court's jury Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 1226 e. selection. jury
Because of this ease by ease approach , we are n
ot pursuaded that affording Sandstrom retroactivi
Conn., Crawford v. ty will result in a devastatingly adverse impact on Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP Warden, 189 Conn. 374 the administration of justice . I Discussing retroactivity retroactivity
Finding : Referee finds that the conduct of the Re
spondent as outlined above would evidence cond
uct ' prejudicial to the administration of justice w
Minn., In re Complaint hich brings the judicial office into disrepute in vi Bar referee found misconduct
1979 COCAP …, 296 N.W.2d 648 olation of Canons [ Canon ] 3A ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) . violative of ethical rules Judicial discipline
The Hearing Panel found him guilty of failing to
preserve client funds in an attorney ’s special acc
ount in violation of Code of Professional Respon
sibility DR 9 -
102 ( A ) and 22 NYCRR 603.15 ; failing to pro
mptly pay funds to which his client was entitled (
DR 9 -
102 [ B ] [ 4 ] ) ; engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty , fraud , deceit or misrepresentation w
hich adversely reflected on his fitness to practice
law ( DR 1 -
102 [ A ] [ 4 ] , [ 6 ] ) ; and conduct prejudicial t
N.Y., In re Baltimore, o the administration of justice in violation of DR
1987 COCAP 132 A.D.2d 424 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) . Bar hearing panel Discipline, lawyer
Wyo., Hoggatt v. State, Citing criterion for nolo contendere plea in
1980 COCAP 606 P.2d 718 footnote. Plea Unclear
Wash., Rhinehart v. Moreover , we are not convinced that the Halkin
Seattle Times Co., 98 approach properly serves the administration of ju Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP Wash. 2d 226 stice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
D.C., In re Hutchison, Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi Citing in footnote basis for 303-day
1987 COCAP 534 A.2d 919 nistration of justice . suspension. Discipline, lawyer
[ T ] he question whether the conduct complaine
Ga., Garland v. State, d of interfered with the administration of justice i Exploring factual basis for contempt Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 171 Ga. App. 519 n a pending case is not involved . order below. Contempt
Monsanto has appealed from this order , contend
ing that the order constituted an impermissible pr
ior restraint of its right of free speech in that it w
Ill., Kemner v. Norfolk as entered without the necessary showing of thre
& Western Ry. Co., 133 at to the administration of justice and was imper Affirming order prohibiting party's Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 597 missibly over-broad . communication with press. press access
This Court in Bowen v. State , 606 P. 2d 589 , 5
93 ( Okl.Cr .1980 ) , held that “ [ d ] ue to the ne
ar certain detriment to the defendant ’s chances o
f receiving a fair defense and to the administratio Reciting standard of review for denial
Okla., Gilbreath v. n of justice , the defendant must clearly and uneq of motion of defense counsel to Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP State, 651 P.2d 699 uivocally assert his demand to proceed pro se : ‘ withdraw. procedure
Pursuant to that consent judgment , the referee re
commends that Seidel be found guilty of engagin
g in conduct prejudicial to the administration of j
ustice , engaging in conduct that adversely reflect
s on his fitness to practice law , and committing
Fla., Bar v. Seidel, 510 an act contrary to honesty , justice , or good mora
1987 COCAP So. 2d 871 ls . Recommendation of Bar referee. Discipline, lawyer
This rule is essential to the orderly administration
S.D.N.Y., Mathias v. of justice , and to prevent unseemly conflicts bet
Lennon, 474 F. Supp. ween courts whose jurisdiction embraces the sam
1979 COCAP 949 e subjects and persons . Explicating a jurisdictional rule. Judicial proceeding
The respondent failed to respond to the request f
or investigation filed by the complainant with the
Grievance Committee . The respondent ’s condu
ct in case No. 83A -
56 violated C.R.C.P. 241.6 ( 1 ) ( violation of th
e Code of Professional Responsibility ) and C.R.
C.P. 241.6 ( 7 ) ( failure to respond to a request f
rom the committee ) , and DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violation of a disciplinary rule )
, DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( conduct involving dishonesty ) ,
DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct prejudicial to the admin
istration of justice ) , DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 6 ) ( conduct that adversely reflects o
n fitness to practice law ) ' , DR 6 -
101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( neglect of legal matter ) , and D
R7-
Colo., People v. Lloyd, 101 ( A ) ( 2 ) ( failure to carry out employment
1985 COCAP 696 P.2d 249 contract with client ) . Bar Grievance Committee Discipline, lawyer
The entire purpose of the finality requirement of
section 1291 is to “ discourage undue litigiousne
C.A.D.C., U.S. v. ss and leaden - Concluding full review of evidence's
Richardson, 702 F.2d footed administration of justice , particularly da sufficiency would be available after a
1983 COCAP 1079 maging to the conduct of criminal cases . ” final verdict. Judicial proceeding
Professional responsibility does not countenance
the use of the attorney -
client privilege as a subterfuge and all conspiraci
es , either active or passive , which are calculated
La., State v. Green, 493 to hinder the administration of justice will vitiate Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP So. 2d 1178 the privilege . Precis to evidentiary ruling. evidentiary issue
The proper administration of justice demands tha
Ga., Wilkerson v. t courts have the power to enforce their orders an Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP Tolbert, 239 Ga. 702 d decrees by contempt proceedings . Upholding contempt order. Contempt
More important than any inhibiting effect on the
N.Y., People v. Le right to gather news is the public interest in the f Press privilege yields to defendant's Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP Grand, 67 A.D.2d 446 air administration of justice . need for exculpatory evidence. press access to
Rule 14 requires the trial court to balance the rig
ht of defendants to a fair trial absent the prejudic
N.D. Ga., U.S. v. e that may result from joint trials , against the pu
Caldwell, 594 F. Supp. blic ’s interest in efficient and economic administ Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 548 ration of justice . The court severed sua sponte . procedure
Ala., Commercial
Fisheries Entry Comm'n
v. Byayuk, 684 P.2d the effect on the administration of justice of a ret Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP 114 roactive application of the new rule of law . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
Respondent ’s actions as set forth above constitut
ed a course of conduct prejudicial to the administ
ration of justice as well as neglect of a legal matt
er entrusted to him in that respondent failed to pr
otect his client ’s interest by filing an answer to t
he defendant ’s request for admissions and left th
e jurisdiction without notifying his client that he
would be unable to appear to represent him at the
scheduled trial date and failed to direct his client Describing predicate conduct
Ind., In re Merritt, 266 to counsel who could represent the client at such justifying liability to sanction as a
1977 COCAP Ind. 353 trial . matter of law. Discipline, lawyer
S. Ct., Northern
Pipeline Const. Co. v. The Framers chose to leave to Congress the prec
Marathong Pipeline Co., ise role to be played by the lower federal courts i
1982 COCAP 102 S. Ct. 2858 n the administration of justice . Discussing separation of powers Judiciary generally
As recently as Rose v. Mitchell , supra , the Sup
reme Court reaffirmed the longstanding fundame
ntal principle that discrimination in the administr Assessing constitutional significance
C.A. 11, U.S. v. Cross, ation of justice harms the accused and undermine of discriminatory jury foreman in trial Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP 708 F.2d 631 s the integrity of the judicial process itself . below. jury
This circuit and others have held that , when the
delay is short and the defendant does not show m
ore than minimal prejudice , reprosecution has lit
C.A. 5, U.S. v. tle , if any , adverse impact on the administration Affirming dismissal without
1987 COCAP Melguizo, 824 F.2d 370 of justice and the administration of the Act . prejudice. Judicial proceeding
The trial court must determine whether joint repr
C.A. 10. U.S. v. esentation will adversely affect the effective and Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP Dressel, 742 F.2d 1256 fair administration of justice . Reciting considerations. procedure
We hold , under these circumstances , that judge
s already assigned and sitting on other cases or ot
herwise engaged in the administration of justice i
Pa., Hamill Estate, 3 Pa. n this judicial district are not “ reasonably availab Deciding composition of en banc
1977 COCAP D. & C.3d 100 le ” for serving as a court en banc . court. Judiciary generally
Petitioner had the burden by clear and convincin
g evidence to persuade the panel and board he ha
s the proper understanding of and attitude toward
s the standards imposed on State Bar members a
Mich., In re Freedman, nd can be safely recommended to aid in the admi Denying reinstatement on advice of
1979 COCAP 406 Mich. 256 nistration of justice . Bar Grievance Board. Discipline, lawyer
Pa., Commonwealth v. It is evident that the orderly administration of jus
Edrington, 317 Pa. tice requires that a criminal controversy , like any Denying reargument of validity of
1983 COCAP Super. 545 other litigation , some day come to an end . guilty plea. Judicial proceeding
In recommending the appointment of a Special
Master , the Magistrate noted that while the Mast
er ’s recommended functions could , as a technic
al matter , be performed by a magistrate , it woul
S.D.N.Y., Park-Tower d be seriously prejudicial to the proper administr
Development Group, ation of justice in this District to allocate so muc Judicial proceeding;
Inc., v. Goldfeld, 87 h of a magistrate ’s time to serve the parties in th appointment of
1980 COCAP F.R.D. 96 is particular multi-million dollar lawsuit . Assessing sanctions for default. special master
We also reject defendant ’s contention that retroa
N.C., Cox. V. Haworth, ctive application of Nicholson will unduly burden Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 304 N.C. 571 the administration of justice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
When the first case was called for trial , in order
to facilitate the administration of justice , the trial
S.C., Creel v. King, 287 judge ordered that all four cases arising out of th Reversing and remanding order for Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP S.C. 205 is accident be consolidated . consolidated trials below. procedure
While the duty of a lawyer to disclose facts regar
ding his own conduct to an investigating tribunal
is not entirely clear in the Code of Professional R
esponsibility ( see American Bar Association Mo
del Rules of Professional Conduct § 8.1 and com
ment thereto ) , an attorney in this State is subjec
t to discipline for failing to report to the Committ
ee on Professional Conduct unprivileged knowle
dge of a lawyer ’s conduct involving dishonesty ,
fraud , deceit or misrepresentation or conduct pr
ejudicial to the administration of justice or condu
ct reflecting adversely on a lawyer ’s fitness to pr
N.H., Eshleman's Case, actice law . DR 1 - 103 ; 1 - Addressing failure to disclose
1985 COCAP 126 N.H. 1 102 ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) , ( 6 ) . disciplinary record. Discipline, lawyer
Removal should be limited to cases urgently dem
anding that action , but the balancing of the defen
dant ’s confrontation right with the need for the p
C.A. 8, Scurr v. Moore, roper administration of justice is a task uniquely Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 647 F.2d 854 suited to the trial judge . Assessing possible contempt below. Contempt
To sustain a finding of direct contempt of court ,
it must be shown that the particular conduct was
calculated to embarrass , hinder or obstruct the c
ourt in its administration of justice , or to lessen i
Ill., People v. Stewart, ts authority of dignity , or to bring the administra Judicial proceeding;
1978 COCAP 58 Ill. App. 3d 630 tion of law into dispute . Reviewing contempt finding. Contempt
This power is essential to preserve the authority
Mich., In re Contempt of the courts and to prevent the administration of Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP …, 113 Mich. App. 549 justice from falling into disrepute . Upholding summary contempt. Contempt
The following considerations are pertinent to the
issue of whether Ross should be given full retroa
ctivity , limited retroactivity , or prospectivity onl
Mich., Moorhouse v. y : ( 1 ) the purpose of the new rule , ( 2 ) the gen
Ambassador Ins. Co., eral reliance upon the old rule , and ( 3 ) the effec
Inc., 147 Mich. App. t of full retroactive application of the new rule on Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 412 the administration of justice Discussing retroactivity retroactivity
The Court made clear , however , that critical to i
C.A.D.C., Grace v. ts decision was the fact that the statute was draw
Burger, 214 U.S. App. n narrowly to apply only to picketing with an inte Reviewing overbreadth of statute used
1981 COCAP D.C. 375 nt to interfere with the administration of justice . below. Judicial proceeding
Section 18 ( b ) specifies that the applicant must
show that “ he or she has good moral character ,
general fitness to practice law and that his or her
resumption of the practice of law in this state will
Ore., In re Bevans, 655 not be detrimental to the administration of justic Outlining legal standard back of
1982 COCAP P.2d 573 e or the public interest . ” reinstatement. Discipline, lawyer
Pa., Commonwealth v. Appellant also argues that the evidence was insuf
Falkenhan, 452 A.2d ficient to prove an “ actual obstruction ” of the ad Finding meritless appeal of Judicial proceeding;
1982 COCAP 750 ministration of justice . obstruction for refusal to participate. interference with
Furthermore , the judge who allowed the motion
Mass., Berube v. had been involved with several phases of the acti
McKesson Wine & on ’s development and undoubtedly was aware th No abuse of discretion in (affirmed)
Spirits Co., 7 Mass. at its restoration to the trial list would not disrupt order allowing motion for relief from
1979 COCAP App. Ct. 426 the administration of justice in the county . judgment. Judicial proceeding
If such bifurcated procedures were encouraged or
sustained , it would create duplication , and unce
N.D., Shark Bros. Inc. rtainty , and waste manpower and money , with n Refusing to allow bifurcated Judicial and
v. Cass Cnty, 256 o appreciable result , and all without improving t procedure in judicial and administrative
1977 COCAP N.W.2d 701 he administration of justice . administrative venues. proceeding
Castle v. State , 237 Ind. 83 , 143 N.E. 2d 570 , 5 Collecting precedent on judicial
Md., St. v. Frazier, 470 72 ( 1957 ) ( trial court failed in its duty to “ ensu reactions to delays caused by Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP A.2d 1269 re efficient administration of justice ” ) congestion. delay of
Moreover , unauthorized ex parte contacts of wh
atever nature erode public confidence in the fairn
Cal., In re Jonathan S., ess of the administration of justice , the very cem Assessing liability to sanctions of
1979 COCAP 88 Cal. App. 3d 468 ent by which the system holds together . juvenile court judge. Discipline, judge
What is at issue in this proceeding is whether pet
itioner met the burden of demonstrating by clear
In re Anonymous Nos. and convincing evidence that he has the moral qu
26 D.B. 73 and 32 D.B. alifications and that the resumption of practice by
73, Disciplinary Board him will be neither detrimental to the integrity a
of the Supreme Court of nd standing of the bar or the administration of ju
1986 COCAP Pennsylvania stice , not subversive to the public interest . Considering reinstatement. Discipline, lawyer
In Bar Docket No. 57 -
83 , the Hearing Committee found that Respond
ent was guilty of neglecting a legal matter entrust
ed to him , in violation of DR 6 -
101 ( A ) ( 3 ) , and conduct prejudicial to the ad
ministration of justice , in violation of DR 1 -
102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , and for these violations the Hear
D.C., In re Washington, ing Committee recommended a suspension of thr Recommendation of Hearing
1985 COCAP 489 A.2d 452 ee months . Committee. Discipline, lawyer
As a matter of sound administration of justice , T
exas courts will not intervene in the domestic aff
Tex., Perry v. Ponder, airs of nonresidents , but will leave them to litigat
1980 COCAP 604 S.W.2d 306 e in their home states . Judicial proceeding
Pa., Commonwealth v.
Jackson, 367 Pa. Super. And in desperation , he did what he did in order t Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 6 o delay the administration of justice . Recalling transcript below contempt
Implicit in what we said is that the judicial power
to punish a lawyer summarily for contempt of co
urt , essential to facilitate the orderly administrati
on of justice ( Gallagher v. Municipal Court ( 19
48 ) 31 Cal .2 d 784,788 [ 192 P. 2d 905 ] ) , is q
ualified by the cumulative effect of the lawyer ’s
right to engage in respectful advocacy on behalf
of his client ( Cooper v. Superior Court ( 1961 )
55 Cal .2 d 291 , 303 [ 10 Cal.Rptr . 842 , 359 P.
Cal., Bloom v. Sup. Ct. 2d 274 ] ) , strict compliance with the statutory f
of San Diego Cnty, 185 ramework and the lawyer ’s personal right to due Recalling previous refusal to find Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP Cal. App. 3d 409 process contempt. contempt
Next , the defendant in Local 542 contended , as
does the respondent , that the fact that the trial ju
dge did not bring the contempt charge immediate
ly when the act was committed , but instead dela
yed 24 hours , was proof that respondent ’s cond
uct did not obstruct the administration of justice
as required under 18 U.S.C.A. § 401 ( 1 ) and th
erefore it was not properly punishable summarily
under Rule 42 ( a ) , Fed.P . Crim.P , , and shoul
W.D. Pa., U.S. v. d have been prosecuted only after notice and hear
Renfroe, 634 F. Supp. ing before another judge as required by Fed.R.Cr Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP 1536 im.P . 42 ( b ) . Rejecting theory against contempt. contempt
Although the court in Craig did indicate that the
news articles were " by any standard ” unfair , it
nevertheless found that the clear and present dan
N.Y., Wuinn v. Aetna ger test had not been met , stating that the utteran
Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 96 ces " must constitute an imminent , not merely a Judicial proceeding;
1978 COCAP Misc. 2d 545 likely , threat to the administration of justice . ” Outlining standards for contemot. contempt
Based upon these facts , the jury found defendant
C.A. 11, U.S. v. Brand, s committed a corrupt endeavor , tending to impe Overturning jury verdict based on Judicial proceeding;
1985 COCAP 775 F.2d 1460 de the due administration of justice . facts not violative of s. 1503. jury
ithout further explanation , the court declared tha
t the in -
state attorney ’s admission to the bar “ does not r
aise the same concern for the efficient administra
S. Ct., Frazier v. Heebe, tion of justice that admission of nonresident attor
1987 COCAP 96 L. Ed. 2d 557 neys does . ” Recalling facts below Bar generally
To compel the government to do so “ would creat
e an insuperable obstacle to the administration of
justice in many cases in whieh there is no sembl Demurring from requiring government Law enforcement;
Conn., State v. Aillon, ance of the type of oppressive practices at which to prosecute all counts against the prosecutorial
1980 COCAP 182 Conn. 124 the double - jeopardy prohibition is aimed . ” same defendant "at one go." discretion
The needless delays engendered by frivolous app
Pa., Commonwealth v. eals hinder the administration of justice as well a Refusing to entertain appeal upon Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP Brady, 508 A.2d 286 s the public interest . finding below motion is frivolous. procedure
The primary aim of disciplinary proceedings agai
nst a judge is to maintain the honor and dignity o
N.D., In re Maragos, f the judiciary and the proper administration of ju
1979 COCAP 285 N.W.2d 541 stice Policy back of judicial discipline. Discipline, judge
and that his resumption of the practice of law in t
his state will be neither detrimental to the integrit
Ore., In re Complaint y and standing of the bar or the administration of
1980 COCAP …, 290 Or. 113 justice nor subversive to the public interest . Quoting rules en bloc. Bar generally
The Board modified the conclusion to find a viol
ation of ( CPR ) DR 1 -
Wash., In re Zderic, 92 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( engaging in conduct prejudicial
1979 COCAP Wash. 2d 777 to the administration of justice ) . Board Conclusion Discipline, lawyer
The Mississippi State Bar Complaints Tribunal f
ound the appellant guilty of violating the followin
g disciplinary rules : DR 1 -
102 . Misconduct ( A ) A lawyer shall not : ( 1 )
Violate a Disciplinary Rule . ( 3 ) Engage in illeg
al conduct involving moral turpitude . ( 4 ) Engag
Miss., Clark v. Miss. e in conduct involving dishonesty , fraud , deceit
Bar Ass'n, 471 So. 2d , or misrepresentation . ( 5 ) Engage in conduct t
1985 COCAP 352 hat is prejudicial to the administration of justice . Board Conclusion Discipline, lawyer
Similarly , if a crime is quite serious , barring rep Law enforcement;
C.A. 11, U.S. v. Godoy, rosecution will have a severe impact on the admi Outlining factors to determin propriety prosecutorial
1987 COCAP 821 F.2d 1498 nistration of justice . of reprosecution. discretion
Access or closure issues involving the press requ
Fla., State ex rel Harte- ire a showing ( a ) that the action is necessary to
Hanks v. Austin, 2 Fla. prevent a serious and imminent threat to the adm Outlining where press freedoms Judicial proceeding;
1983 COCAP Supp. 2d 160 inistration of justice , recede before needs of defendant. press access to
The same question can not be presented in succe
ssive petitions for writs of habeas corpus before t
he same court ( Com . ex rel . v. Shovlin , 24 Be
aver 94 ( 1962 ) ) , and we fail to see how the pro
mpt and orderly administration of justice is to be
fostered by presenting a subsequent petition to th
Pa., Noyer v. e very court whose purported inaction is being co
Commonwealth, 20 Pa. mplained of under a subsisting petition presently Agreeing with magistrate that habeas Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP D. & C.3d 659 being considered by our Federal district court . petition lacked merit. delay of
[ I ] t is a general principle of the highest import
ance to the proper administration of justice that a
C.A. 5, United judicial officer , in exercising the authority veste
Steelworkers of Am., d in him , shall be free to act upon his own convi
AFL-CIO v. Bishop, ctions , without apprehension of personal conseq Policy back of upholding judicial
1979 COCAP 598 F.2d 408 uences to himself . immunity. Judiciary generally
Zywicki had consulted with an attorney concerni
ng the legality of his activities and had been infor
med that the Superior Court for the District of C
olumbia had construed the statute that prohibited
leafletting , 40 U. S. C. § 13k , to prohibit only c
onduct done with the specific intent to influence ,
Sup. Ct., U.S. v. Grace, impede , or obstruct the administration of justice Outlining lawyer's assessment of
1983 COCAP 103 S. Ct. 1702 . legality of defendant's leafletting. Unclear
The Supreme Court has often considered the effe
C.A. 5, Stretton v. ct of retroactivity on the administration of justice Judicial
Penrod Drilling Co., as a relevant factor in determining the retroactivi proceceding;
1983 COCAP 701 F.2d 441 ty question . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
Hearing committee [ ] in its report filed May 18 ,
1983 recommended that the petition for reinstate
ment be denied because petitioner failed to demo
nstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he
has the moral qualifications required for admissi
on to the practice of law in the Commonwealth o
In re Anonymous No. 4 f Pennsylvania and because the admission of Peti
D.B. 76, Disciplinary tioner to the resumption of the practice of law wo
Board of the Supreme uld be detrimental to ' the administration of justic
1983 COCAP Court of Pennsylvania e and subversive to the public interest Committee Recommendation Discipline, lawyer
In leaving the breadth of the jurisdiction of the as
sociate divisions of the circuit courts to the judici
ary , the General Assembly may well have believ
ed that the circuit courts , subject to the supervisi
on of the Supreme Court and certain statutory res
trictions ( some of which are mentioned in this o
pinion ) , can best decide what cases or classes of
Mo., St. ex rel McNaul cases should be assigned to associate circuit jud
v. Bonacker, 711 ges in order to promote the efficient administrati Considering whether refusal of
1986 COCAP S.W.2d 566 on of justice in Missouri . jurisdiction was misconduct. Discipline, judge
Justice Powell has pointed out that it “ hardly co
mports with the ideal of ‘ administration of justic
e with an even hand , ’” when “ one chance bene
ficiary — the lucky individual whose case was ch
osen as the occasion for announcing the new prin
ciple — enjoys retroactive application , while oth
Sup. Ct., Griffith v. Ky., ers similarly situated have their claims adjudicate Judicial proceeding;
1987 COCAP 1987 U.S. LEXIS 283 d under the old doctrine . Discussing retroactivity retroactivity
The destruction of evidence has a uniquely dama
ging effect on the administration of justice , for o Withholding immunity from law Law enforcement;
E.D. Pa., Wilkinson v. nce evidence has been destroyed it can not be ret enforcement officers who destroyed destruction of
1980 COCAP Ellis, 484 F. Supp. 1072 rieved for judicial review . evidence. evidence
There the plaintiff argued that the phrase , “ cond
uct which is prejudicial to the administration of j
Ill., People ex rel. ustice or which brings the judicial office into disr
Harrod v. Ill. Courts epute , ” was unconstitutionally vague and overly Reciting precedentg in instant
1977 COCAP Comm'n, 69 Ill. 2d 445 broad . consideration of judge's conduct. Discipline, judge
The modern view is that the privilege promotes t Articulating rational for, while
Fla., Brookings v. State, he administration of justice by “ encouraging clie refusing to find waiver of, attorney- Judicial proceeding;
1986 COCAP 495 So. 2d 135 nts to lay thé facts fully before their counsel . client privilege. evidentiary issue
Ill., Hurletron Whittier, Finally , requiring defendant to defend this lawsu
Inc. v. Barda, 82 Ill. it in Illinois is neither reasonable nor in keeping Refusing to require defendant to Judicial proceeding;
1980 COCAP App. 3d 443 with the orderly administration of justice . defend the case in Illinois. procedure
To those aware of the problem , it is readily appa
rent that compliance with the seemingly clear ins
tructions just noted [ Note 3 ( e ) under MAI -
CR2d 15.00 ] would contribute more to the orde
rly administration of justice than have the efforts
of this and other appellate courts to approve or di
sapprove of the absence thereof [ the instruction
Mo., State v. Gordon, on conventional manslaughter ] in specific cases Reversing and remanding on account Judicial proceeding;
1981 COCAP 621 S.W.2d 262 . of failure properly to instruct the jury. jury
Their sole warrant is the protection of interests a
nd relationships which , rightly or wrongly , are r
N.J., Fitzgibbon v. egarded as of sufficient social importance to justi
Fitzgibbon, 197 N.J. fy some incidental sacrifice of sources of facts ne Judicial proceeding;
1984 COCAP Super. 63 eded in the administration of justice . Qualifying spousal privilege. evidentiary issue
Miss., Myers v. Miss. The courts of this state are dedicated to the fair a
St. Bar, 480 So. 2d nd equal administration of justice and act in acco No error where court was unaware
1985 COCAP 1080 rdance with that high principle . that a party had no representation. Judicial proceeding
He who makes studied inquiries of jurors as to w
E.D. Mich., U.S. v. hat occurred there acts at his peril , lest he be hel
Narciso, 446 F. Supp. d as acting in obstruction of the administration of Upholding prohibition on post-trial Judicial proceeding;
1977 COCAP 252 justice . contact between lawyer and jurors. jury
Thereafter , on August 25 , 1983 , a criminal co
mplaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Dauphin County charging appellant with perju Consequence for appellant who had
Pa., Commonwealth v. ry , false swearing , and obstructing the administr made false sworn representations to
1986 COCAP Thomas, 506 A.2d 420 ation of justice . grand jury. Grand Jury
The First Amendment Interest in Litigation and t
he Administration of Justice Defendants correctl
C.A.D.C., In re Halkin, y point out that attorneys “ have historically been Discussing lawyers' qualified retention
1979 COCAP 194 U.S. App. D.C. 257 ‘ officers of the courts [ , ] ’ ” of First Amendment rights. Judicial proceeding
( 1 ) The purpose of the new rule , ( 2 ) general
Mich., People v. Kamin, reliance on the old rule and ( 3 ) the effect on the Judicial proceeding;
1979 COCAP 405 Mich. 482 administration of justice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity
The court may in its wisdom temper
the administration of justice by casing the degree
Toorrow's Son (Robert of punishment, but in this case sees no reason for Judicial decision-
1977 COHA Hoskins) leniency. Judicial decision-making making
His characterization of the legal profession as
being motivated by self-interest does a disservice
to the thousands of lawyers who have actively
involved themselves in nonpaying charitable
activities in their local communities throughout
the state. It also fails to take into consideration
the active, concerted effort of state and local bar
associations to aid in the administration of Bar associations upholding the
1977 COHA NYT Letter to Editor justice, which is a social commitment. administration of justice Bar associations
Justice Powell said that a judge, when presented
with a request to close a hearing, should first
JUSTICES, 5-4, LIMIT decide " whether there are alternative means
COURTROOM reasonably available by which the fairness of the
ACCESS BY PRESS trial might be preserved without interfering
AND PUBLIC; substantially with the public's interest in prompt
JUDGE'S PRETRIAL access to information concerning Judge deciding whether to close a Judicial decision-
1979 COHA BAN UPHELD (NYT) the administration of justice. " hearing to acess making
Realities and Illusions This court modeled after the Chicago Municipal
(Frances Moley, Court was an innovation in the administration of Expansion of municipal court to take
1980 COHA autobiography) justice. civil and criminal jurisdiction. Courts generally
My familiarity with Pound's writing came from
the writing of my essay on the Cleveland
Realities and Illusions Municipal Court, in which I included a
(Frances Moley, sprinkling of quotations from Pound's article on
1980 COHA autobiography) the administration of justice in the modern city. Courts generally Courts generally
While he had expressed views concerning
Realities and Illusions the administration of justice which were rated
(Frances Moley, liberal, he was as solidly Republican and as
1980 COHA autobiography) conservative as William H. Taft. Author's view of Pound Courts generally
When the survey was about half finished, he
proposed to the Committee that there be a
Realities and Illusions division of the survey which would deal with the
(Frances Moley, influence of the newspapers in Press reporting about the
1980 COHA autobiography) the administration of justice. administration of justice Unclear
Neither did the adults who managed the
education system, nor the lawyers and judges in
our courts, nor the Governor, nor those who led
Jimmy Carter, Speaking our Government in Washington and were
Out for Human Rights, responsible for the administration of justice in Government
1982 COHA TIME our great and free nation. I School desegration generally
" Rose Bird, " said Deukmejian in his campaign,
Bennett H. Beach, No " has done more damage to the California
Longer Best or Supreme Court and the administration of justice
1982 COHA Brightest, TIME than any of her predecessors. " Campaign for state chief justice Courts generally
or a concept of " political justice " that does away
Gertrude Himmelfarb, with a need for any kind of polity or
The Compleat Utopian, any administration of justice; or a humanism that
The New Republic: would like to " extirpate " much of human nature
12/31/84, Vol. 191 Issue as we know it, including sex, emotion, parental Government
1984 COHA 26, p25-30, 6p love, even parental identity. Describing view of thinker. generally
Henry V made a deliberate effort to grasp again
all the reins of power; hugely self-confident,
industrious, clear in his objectives and
determined to have his way in all things, he was
a fright-ening and much feared figure among the
ruling class; but he simply did not have the time
Paul Johnson, A History to supervise directly the administration of justice Executive power;
1985 COHA of the English People and finance, while engaged on a war of conquest. Henry V's reign law enforcement
Leon Botstein, Better For example, Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller
Than Receiving, The have consistently sponsored studies and issued
New Republic: reports under their own aegis intended to shape
12/29/86, Vol. 195 Issue social legislation, foreign policy, public opinion, Describing robber barons'
1986 COHA 26, p34-38, 4p and the administration of justice. philanthropy. Unclear