‘Chicago 7' appeals

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32838, 11 February 1972, Page 9

‘Chicago 7' appeals

(N.Z.P.A. -Reuter—Copyright} CHICAGO, Feb. 10. Judge Julius Hoffman, who presided over the noisy and controversial trial of the “Chicago Seven,” has been criticised in court again, this time for the prison sentences he imposed on the defendants and their lawyers for contempt during the 4|-month riot conspiracy hearings.

A target of the' anger of all the accused during the turbulent trial, Judge Hoffman was accused yesterday by their defence lawyers of goading them into contemptuous behaviour.

The accusation came during the second and final day of oral arguments before three judges of the Court of Appeals by lawyers seeking the quashing of the prison terms—varying from 2J months to more than four years—that Judge Hoffman imposed for contempt at the end of the conspiracy trial nearly a year ago. The appeals judges heard arguments on Tuesday in the appeals of five of the defendants: David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.

They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined BUSSOOO after being found guilty of crossing state lines to incite a riot during the 1968 Democratic Party convention in Chicago. Hie Court of Appeals ar-

guments yesterday concerned the contempt sentences imposed by Judge Hoffman on five leaders of campaigns against the Vietnam war: the Black Panther leader, Bobby Seale, whose trial was eventually separated from that of the other defendants because of his frequent courtroom disturbances; John Froines and Lee Weiner, who were acquitted of the riot charges; and the two defence lawyers William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass. Seale’s lawyer, Mr Charles Garry, whose whereabouts were unknown but who was said to be ill during the riot trial, told the appeals judges that his client had been denied by Judge Hoffman the right to have the lawyer of his choice. Seale, who was ordered by Judge Hoffman to be bound and gagged in court because of his repeated outbursts, was eventually sentenced to four years imprisonment for contempt. Mr Anthony Amsterdam, a constitutional lawyer and professor of law at Stanford University, submitted that the judge’s ruling was unconstitutional. Mr Amsterdam cited a Supreme Court decision of January, 1971, that “a judge who is personally involved in a contempt situation must rule instantly at the time of the alleged contempt.”

Mr Amsterdam contended that Judge Hoffman was “actually embroiled,” and not just involved, in the situation and should have promptly assigned the matter of contempt to another judge. Other defence lawyers described as absurd the 150 individual contempt citations preferred by Judge Hoffman against the accused and their lawyers. The Court of Appeals >s expected to take several weeks, perhaps months, to consider the oral arguments and massive written briefs submitted by both defence and prosecution.