# United States v. Bernard E. Meyer, and Philip J. Hirschkop

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 20, 1972 · 462 F.2d 827

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458366

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. Bernard E. MEYER Et Al., and Philip J. Hirschkop, Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 20, 1972
- **Citations:** 462 F.2d 827; 149 U.S. App. D.C. 212; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11743
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Miller
- **Judges:** Miller, McGowan, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458366

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding recusal may be required even in summary contempt proceeding if there is “a sufficient possibility of bias to make disqualification necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary”
- describing necessity for recusal when the judge “has adopted an adversary posture with respect to the alleged contemnor, as in Murchison and Johnson ”

## Opinion text

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I do not agree with the majority’s laborious effort to reconcile the Supreme Court’s decisions and so I cannot concur in the conclusion it draws from its efforts. Finespun theories as to when and how a trial judge reacts to contemptuous courtroom conduct do not impress me.
We should hold, I think, that the trial judge involved here had full authority to act as he did in punishing the appellant for inexcusable and outrageous behavior in the courtroom. Therefore, being of the view that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458366. Public record. Not legal advice.