Life imitates art, but only sort of

Listen to this article

“Defense counsel’s obstinate behavior and the court’s exasperation with it may be reminiscent for some of the contentious interplay between the fictional characters of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini and Judge Chamberlain Haller in the film ‘My Cousin Vinny.’ On three separate occasions during trial, Judge Haller held Vinny in contempt and, each time, made him spend the overnight recess in jail. However, unlike defense counsel here, Vinny, a New York lawyer struggling to adapt to the rural-Alabama trial setting, found that the accommodations in jail offered the best night’s sleep he could find away from the Big Apple. Upon his return to the courtroom, a revitalized Vinny dismantled the credibility of the State’s circumstantial case and cleared the names of the ‘two yutes’ he represented. (And again we see that life follows art).”
Hon. William J. Bauer
Seventh Circuit

In the movie “My Cousin Vinny” the defense attorney wins dismissal of homicide charges against his clients despite repeatedly being held in contempt and ordered to spend the night in jail.

The defendant in a recent Seventh Circuit case, however, was not so fortunate. Not only was he found guilty, but the court rejected his theories as to why jailing his attorney during trial violated his right to a fair trial.

William Riley Sutherland, III, was tried before a jury in an Illinois state court on two counts each of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm and home invasion.

On the third day of a five-day trial, Sutherland’s defense counsel was held in contempt and jailed overnight. The attorney returned to court the next morning and represented Sutherland through the conclusion of trial.

After exhausting his state court remedies, Sutherland filed an unsuccessful habeas corpus petition in federal district court. He appealed, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal in an opinion by Judge William J. Bauer.

Sutherland argued that jailing his attorney prevented him from conferring with the attorney during the overnight recess.

However, the court found that nothing prevented Sutherland from seeking preparation time the next day.

It noted that if counsel had moved for a continuance in light of the circumstances, and if the court denied it, Sutherland would have a plausible claim that inability to confer with counsel affected the defense.

The court acknowledged that an affidavit from the defense attorney alleged that his spending the night in jail left him sleep-deprived and lacking the “presence of mind” to adequately present Sutherland’s case or even move for a continuance. But it found this claim lacked credibility.

“We cannot accept that an attorney functioning on little rest, whether it be three hours of sleep or no sleep at all, would lack the presence of mind even to request a simple continuance.”

The court did advise judges not to jail attorneys during trial.

Judge Bauer wrote, “the court could have simply held counsel in contempt, but postponed his confinement until the conclusion of trial.”