Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenaappealtrialtestimonymotionwillgood faithgrand juryadmissibility

precedenttrialwillprobationgood faithappellant

Related Cases

U.S. v. Remini, 967 F.2d 754

Facts

Remini was indicted for criminal contempt after he refused to testify at the trial of Thomas Gambino, who was charged with giving false testimony to a grand jury. Despite being granted immunity, Remini claimed that his refusal was based on advice from his counsel and concerns about illegal surveillance. The trial court denied his motion to quash the subpoena and ultimately found him guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying the court's order to testify.

Remini's indictment and conviction resulted from his refusal to testify in November 1989 at the trial of United States v. Thomas Gambino, 89 Cr. 431, in the Eastern District of New York, Jack B. Weinstein, J.

Issue

Did the district court err in ruling that good faith reliance on advice of counsel is not a defense to criminal contempt and in its definition of willfulness?

Appellant claims that good faith reliance on advice of counsel is a defense to criminal contempt and that willfulness is negated by a good faith refusal to testify.

Rule

Good faith reliance on advice of counsel is not a defense to contempt, and willfulness in the context of criminal contempt requires proof of willful disobedience of a court order.

1 The trial court ruled that the intent element of criminal contempt is satisfied by proof of willful disobedience of a court order and that good faith reliance on advice of counsel does not constitute a defense to such willful disobedience.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Remini's refusal to testify was a willful act of disobedience, regardless of his claims of good faith reliance on counsel. The court emphasized that the intent to obstruct justice was evident from the circumstances surrounding Remini's refusal to comply with the court's order.

Under our precedents, Judge Bartels was again correct in this case in refusing to give such a charge and in excluding evidence regarding Remini's reasons for refusing to obey the court's order.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the district court's rulings on the definitions of willfulness and the admissibility of evidence were correct.

We therefore find that the district court's evidentiary rulings and charge on 'willfulness' were entirely correct.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld Remini's conviction for contempt based on his willful refusal to testify.

The court agreed with the Probation Department and the government and applied section 2J1.2, the Guideline for Obstruction of Justice.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Rollins Environmental Services (NJ), Inc., 893 F.2d 605

Scheckel v. NLI, Inc., 953 N.E.2d 133

Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251, 66 S.Ct. 574, 90 L.Ed. 652

Ellison v. Fry, 437 S.W.3d 762

Aponte v. City of Chicago, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 1838773