In the Matter of: Matthew Geoffrion

As stated in the amicus brief, “A sitting trial judge summarily convicted a criminal defense attorney in a capital murder trial of direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to thirty days in jail. This conviction arose not from courtroom conduct but upon an affidavit, filed outside of court, supporting a motion to disqualify the trial judge based on statements and conduct disparaging defense counsel.”

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in support of Attorney Geoffrion in conjunction with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a group of retired judges including Judge Lucy Inman, Judge Wanda Bryant, Judge Richard D. Boner, and Judge Carl Fox.

The amicus brief contends that the trial judge failed to follow statutorily mandated procedures. The alleged actions forming the basis of the summary contempt conviction did not happen in the courtroom and did not obstruct proceedings. Thus, they did not amount to direct contempt, and the judge erred by proceeding summarily. Instead, the alleged contempt was indirect at best, such that Geoffrion had procedural rights that were ignored by the trial court.

In addition, the brief argues that the trial judge should have referred the contempt charge to another judge and that the contempt conviction violated Mr. Geoffrion’s client’s constitutional rights. The threat of summary criminal contempt in response to a motion to disqualify a judge “undermines the ability of lawyers to competently and zealously represent their clients, casts doubt upon the integrity of the judiciary, and violates a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial.”