Davis v. Goodson

1983-01-17

Headline: Court denies review of a lawyer’s contempt conviction for advising a client to refuse a breathalyzer, leaving the conviction in place and not resolving whether such advice is constitutionally protected.

Holding: The Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, leaving the state-court contempt conviction in place because the petition did not show a federal question was presented or decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the lawyer’s contempt conviction unreviewed by the Supreme Court.
Keeps open whether good-faith advice to refuse a breath test is protected.

Topics: breathalyzer refusal, lawyer held in contempt, Fifth Amendment self-incrimination, Supreme Court review denied

Summary

Background

A lawyer was summarily held in contempt after advising his client that the client had a privilege not to submit to a breath-analysis test. The contempt citation and sentence followed without a judicial finding that the lawyer’s advice was given in bad faith. The lawyer asked the Court to review the state-court decision.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Justice Stevens, concurring in the denial, explained that the petition did not affirmatively show that a federal question was presented to or decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court, and for that reason the Court correctly refused review. The denial therefore leaves the lower-court outcome intact without speaking to the constitutional issue.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to take the case, the lawyer’s contempt conviction and sentence remain in effect as enforced by the state courts. The important question whether an attorney who in good faith tells a client to assert a privilege against self-incrimination (here, to refuse a breath test) can be punished by contempt remains unresolved by this Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented from the denial and would have granted review to decide whether the contempt conviction is constitutionally infirm in light of Maness v. Meyers (1975), which held that advocates acting in good faith cannot be punished for advising clients to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege.