In Re Yengo

417 A.2d 533 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Yengo (D) represented Leone, one of ten defendants in a gambling conspiracy trial. The case, from the very nature of the fact that ten parties were on trial, presented difficult trial problems. There were intricate proofs for the trial, which included wiretaps and electronic surveillance, and this made attorney attendance mandatory throughout the trial. Both the court and counsel recognized the special problems inherent in the management of the case. The judge instructed counsel that she could not tolerate tardiness nor absence without her prior approval. On February 8, 1978, she instructed D to make sure that any scheduling conflicts were to be resolved with other judges and to advise her if there were any unworkable conflicts. Six days later, the judge again put all counsel on notice of her time restrictions relating to the case and that she intended to impose sanctions if they were violated. D was aware of the instructions and even requested the judge to resolve a scheduling conflict. D appeared regularly until March 2 wherein D did not appear and also failed to notify the court. Another attorney, Lawrence Burns, appeared and D did notice the prosecutor and other attorneys in the case. Burns arrived late for the trial. The trial court acknowledged Leone’s consent to be represented by Burns. During lunch the judge questioned Burns about D’s absence, and then the judge found that D was going out of the country and that Burns basically had only 15 minutes to review the Leone file and that previously Burns had spent two days reviewing the case with D. Eventually, the judge discovered that D was on a four-day vacation to Bermuda. A telegram was sent to D’s home, instructing him to appear. After hearing D’s excuse for the absence, the judge cited D for contempt; that was on March 6, 1978. Eventually, D appeared before the judge on April 14, 1978, and contempt was affirmed, and a $500 fine was imposed. The judge issued a written opinion seven days later. D appealed.