{
  "id": 2944495,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIANE POWELL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Powell",
  "decision_date": "1993-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 1 \u2014 92\u20140855",
  "first_page": "164",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 Ill. App. 3d 164"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "395 N.E.2d 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 3d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3278119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/76/0667-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 N.E.2d 136",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3506844
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/156/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "445 N.E.2d 762",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill. 2d 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3106072
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/94/0167-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 434,
    "char_count": 6878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28475405322858593
    },
    "sha256": "8b1c4ca08a6976a88570cc316b2f6efbd754152c308b972e94f376e445e35624",
    "simhash": "1:69ee3de28d9dde37",
    "word_count": 1205
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:37.974036+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIANE POWELL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE EGAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAttorney Diane Powell appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County finding her in direct criminal contempt of court and fining her $100. The fine was stayed by the trial judge pending appeal.\nOn January 28, 1992, Ms. Powell, an assistant public defender, appeared before the trial judge on behalf of a criminal defendant and answered ready for trial. Following an off-the-record conference the following occurred:\n\u201cTHE COURT: On the record. Trial will commence at 11 o\u2019clock.\nMS. POWELL: I will be here at 11.1 hope the jury will be.\nTHE COURT: I am not going to have any remarks like that in my courtroom. I will not be spoken to that way. There is no reason for it. I want an apology.\nMS. POWELL: I \u2014 if I did not believe there wag, I would not have spoken that way; and I apologize.\nTHE COURT: Even if you do have a reason, you will not do that in my courtroom. I want an apology, or I will hold you in contempt. Take Miss Powell into custody.\" (Emphasis added.)\nThe case was recalled, according to the State, two hours later, during which time Ms. Powell remained in custody. The following occurred:\n\u201cMR. CARMODY [Ms. Powell\u2019s supervisor]: Could I address the court? Would you allow Ms. Powell to address the court at this time?\nTHE COURT: For what purpose?\nMR. CARMODY: I think she wants to address the court regarding the incident that took place, and also prior to the jury being brought in.\nTHE COURT: I still would like to know for what purpose. I am not interested in further comments.\nMR. CARMODY: I think she would attempt to apologize to the court for what took place this morning.\nTHE COURT: She wants to address the court in apology?\nMR. CARMODY: Yes. I think that \u2014 yes. I do not want to do it. I am not the attorney.\nTHE COURT: Bring Ms. Powell out.\nMS. POWELL: May I address the bench, Your Honor?\nTHE COURT: You may.\nMS. POWELL: Judge Douglas, I am sorry if my remark, \u2018I\u2019ll be here at 11:00, Judge, I hope the jury is,\u2019 was perceived as disrespectful to the office you hold. Often the unavoidable pressures of the advocate system, not to mention the pressures of individual conflicting personalities, create a charged atmosphere resulting in misunderstandings on both sides. I find this to be unfortunate but inevitable. Since my first duty is to my client and since he cannot receive adequate representation from an attorney while in custody, let me again assure you I mean no disrespect to your office.\nTHE COURT: I asked for that apology at eleven \u2014 about ten minutes to eleven. The court has held you in \u2014 is holding you in criminal contempt. And I will fine you $100 for your behavior this morning. I will keep you in custody until your fine is paid. I will accept your apology, however.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nMr. Carmody then asked the judge to release Ms. Powell from custody on bond and to permit her to represent her client. The following occurred:\n\u201cTHE COURT: She will be released subject to \u2014 she \"will be able to represent her client in the court trial. I will release her for that purpose. She may fully participate in all aspects of the trial.\nMR. CARMODY: Is she going to be released from custody now, Judge, prior to the jury being brought out so she can go to the office and prepare her case?\nTHE COURT: She may bring her files back down, yes, to prepare for trial and be here for trial.\n* * *\nMR. CARMODY: Thank you. Could we readdress the issue of the fine later on this afternoon?\nTHE COURT: I have already ruled on that. Nothing else is pending before me right now. How long will you need to get your file and be prepared with your client?\nMS. POWELL: About an hour, Judge.\nTHE COURT: An hour. I will give you one hour to be back.\u201d\nIn her written order, the judge found Ms. Powell in contempt and fined her $100 based on her having\n\u201cstated in open court remarks which undermined the integrity and fairness of the court *** and then having turned her back to the court in silent defiance of the court and the opportunity the court provided her to retract the remarks and the tone of voice [used] to deliver said remarks.\u201d\nDirect criminal contempt requires proof that the acts at issue were calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in its administration of justice or to derogate its authority or its dignity or bring the administration of law into disrepute. (People v. Siegel (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 167, 445 N.E.2d 762.) The standard of proof for direct criminal contempt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of contemptuous intent and acts. Central Production Credit Association v. Kruse (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 526, 509 N.E.2d 136.\nThe worst that may be said of Ms. Powell\u2019s remarks is that they were sarcastic (and even that is not clear), and sarcasm alone is not sufficient to sustain a finding of contempt. (Smith v. Georgia Pacific Corp. (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 667, 395 N.E.2d 214.) Moreover, the remarks could not be construed to be an attempt to embarrass, hinder or obstruct the judge in the administration of justice. If the jurors do not appear for duty on time, that is not the fault of the judge. We make an extreme understatement when we say that the record does not establish direct contempt on the part of Ms. Powell beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe judge told Ms. Powell to apologize or she would be held in contempt. She did apologize, but she was still held in contempt and taken into custody, where she remained for at least two hours. We express strong disapproval of the contempt finding itself, and we deplore any practice of taking people into custody under circumstances such as were present here, even if the contempt finding could be upheld.\nNo purpose would be served by any further discussion of the applicable law and citation of any more cases. Suffice it to say that this is the weakest case involving a finding of contempt on the part of an attorney that we have encountered through research, personal experience or any other source. There are many cases in which reviewing courts have reversed contempt convictions which were based on facts much more egregious than are present here. The power to punish for direct contempt is an extraordinary power and should be exercised with utmost caution. In this unfortunate case, that power was exercised with abandon.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nMcNAMARA, P.J., and RAKOWSKI, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE EGAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Lynn Hubanks Miller, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Jack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Christine Cook, and Dori K. Leo, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIANE POWELL, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 92\u20140855\nOpinion filed May 21, 1993.\nRehearing denied July 9, 1993.\nRita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Lynn Hubanks Miller, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nJack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Christine Cook, and Dori K. Leo, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0164-01",
  "first_page_order": 184,
  "last_page_order": 188
}