Opinion

In Re Arnold

  • 204 Cal. 175
  • 267 P. 316
  • 1928 Cal. LEXIS 651
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
May 14, 1928
Status
Published
Author
Langdon
On the bench
, Langdon
Cited by
6 cases

The opinion

*180

LANGDON, J., Dissenting.

I dissent. I find myself unable to concur in the order fixing the punishment just made by the court majority. I am of the opinion that in this matter the penalty should be either the maximum provided by law—five hundred dollars fine and five days’ imprisonment in the county jail—or, it should consist of an admonition or, at most, a reprimand. If this unwarranted interference with the due administration of justice were prompted by selfish or corrupt motives, or was knowingly and designedly intended, by secret communications, to exert an undue and unfair influence on the court, nothing less than the maximum penalty would be adequate. On the other hand, if, with no improper motives, but through ignorance of court procedure, with no realization of the improprieties of the act complained of, these defendants openly blundered into this embarrassing situation, neither the dignity nor the integrity of this court, nor the ends of justice, require more than an admonition, or, at most, a reprimand, to these defendants.

Because I am satisfied that the defendants, none of whom is a lawyer, did not realize the impropriety of their acts and were actuated by no improper motive, I think the punishment is excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances of this case; that an admonition, or, at most, a reprimand, would be amply sufficient.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.