COVID, Continuances And Contempt

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a contempt conviction of an attorney who had failed to appear for a murder trial because he had been exposed to coronavirus but did not provide medical confirmation deemed sufficient by the trial judge

Shamsiddeen’s email also belies his claim that he was not willfully disobedient. The trial court instructed Shamsiddeen that he needed to provide medical documentation confirming his alleged illness in order for her to continue the trial. But Shamsiddeen refused to do so, claiming that his doctor’s note fell “within the guidelines of HIPPA regulations” and that “a doctor cannot divulge a patient[’]s illness or medical records to be broadcast to the world.” But Shamsiddeen ignores the fact that he had already divulged his alleged illness to the trial court, and a medical professional may release relevant medical information with the patient’s consent. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a)(1)(iv).

Presiding Justice Kitchens dissented

This is the first time this Court has interpreted Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(d). Before us today is a situation in which an attorney was directed by a physician to quarantine due to his recent exposure to a dangerous, contagious disease, resulting in the attorney’s inability to appear at his client’s trial. The trial judge required that the attorney produce a positive COVID-19 test as a prerequisite for a continuance. We must decide whether it is necessary for an attorney or other person who is unable to appear in court because of his or her medical status to provide the judge a physician’s detailed analysis of why the person cannot or should not appear. This lawyer’s absence was not his own contrivance, but was the result of his compliance with the instructions of a licensed healthcare professional. With respect, I disagree with the majority’s opinion that Ali M. Shamsiddeen’s conduct amounted to direct criminal contempt.

Exposure

While Shamsiddeen was well aware of his client’s trial date, he knew also that he had been exposed to COVID-19, which resulted in his being instructed by a licensed physician to quarantine. The word quarantine is defined as “enforced isolation or restriction of free movement imposed to prevent a contagious disease from spreading.

The non-appearance was not willful

Despite the doctor’s medical order for the attorney to quarantine, the trial judge rejected the quarantine order and demanded proof that he had been infected. The trial court mandated a higher burden than was necessary to grant a continuance: a positive COVID-19 diagnosis. The trial judge incorrectly required Shamsiddeen to prove that he, indeed, was sick. A positive COVID-19 diagnosis for the lawyer was not necessary for the judge to grant him and his client a continuance. This Court previously had issued orders prohibiting attorneys from entering Mississippi courtrooms following a physician-ordered quarantine or upon being exposed to COVID-19.

Thus

Shamsiddeen should not have been held in contempt when he was forced into isolation by his doctor for the safety of others. Because he did not act willfully or obstruct the administration of justice, I would find that his actions were not criminal in nature. Although the trial judge is to be admired for doing everything she could to bring a serious case to trial, she erred by issuing a contempt order against Shamsiddeen in these circumstances.

Because there was no criminal contempt, there was no direct contempt.