Legal Opinion
Smith v. Pace
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided May 11, 2010No. SC 90425PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MICHAEL A. WOLFF, Judge.
Introduction
The prosecution of a lawyer for criminal contempt of court for words the lawyer wrote in a writ pleading is a difficult and untidy business, as this case shows: The lawyer’s duty of zealous advocacy and freedom of speech may clash with the courts’ inherent power to protect its proceedings.
At the outset, it should be noted that this habeas corpus proceeding reviews a judgment based on the court’s inherent power to punish for criminal contempt, where a jury found the accused attorney, Carl Smith, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of indirect criminal contempt…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Garrison v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Bloom v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Bridges v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Craig v. HarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State ex rel. Koster v. CainMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
- In re The Estate of Arthur E. Pethan, Mary Lu Brown, Personal Representative of the Estate of Arthur E. Pethan v. David A. HeinMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
- Carothers v. CarothersSupreme Court of Missouri · 2011
- In re KendallSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2011
- Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Stephen L. HallWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.