observing that habeas application challenging judgment of criminal contempt is "properly before us as an original writ of habeas corpus, and we will entertain it as such"
How later courts described this case
- observing that habeas application challenging judgment of criminal contempt is "properly before us as an original writ of habeas corpus, and we will entertain it as such"
- district attorney's remarks during pretrial hearing that judge was biased toward the defendant held not to be contempt because they were not made in "boisterous tone," did not disrupt proceedings, and were relevant to issue of jury contamination under discussion
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ONION, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I would, however, point out that I do not consider relator’s conduct and statements to be ethical or proper. Relator’s actions were undignified and discourteous conduct which was demeaning to the tribunal before whom he was appearing as an attorney and officer of the court. See DR 7-106(C)(6), Code of Professional Responsibility — Title 14 App.; Art. 12, § 8, p. 353, Vol. 1A, V.A.C.S.
I concur.
ODOM and TOM G. DAVIS, JJ., join in this concurrence as well as in the majority opinion.