Mr. Justice Santana Becerra
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Superior Court, Arecibo Part, found Francisco M. Susoni and Tomás Torres Cortés, attorneys at law, guilty of contempt and sentenced them to 30 days in jail. Both have appealed from the judgment.
The trial of the case filed by The People of Puerto Rico against Pedro Matos Matos for a violation of § 192 of the [122] Penal Code 1 was being held in the Arecibo Part of the Superior Court. The trial commenced on June 10, 1954. The defendant was represented by Mr. Franciscso M. Susoni and Mr. Tomás Torres Cortés. The defense announced that Mr. Baltasar Quiñones Elias, Mr. José Luis Feliú Pesquera, and Mr. Archilla Laugier were also attorneys in the case and requested that their absence be excused. The jury having been constituted and a question of law raised by the defense having been overruled, the defendant was arraigned, again he pleaded not guilty, and the judge ordered that the witnesses be called and sworn. The witnesses were sworn; however, the names of those called by either party do not appear from the record.
Elba González Alvarez, the first witness for the prosecution, made reference in the course of her testimony to Funda-dor Rodríguez Yiruet, and shortly thereafter the following occurred, as it appears from the transcript of the stenographic notes (Tr. Evid. 112-16) :
“Upon examination by the Judge, she testified:
Q. Do you know Fundador?
A. I saw him that day for the first time.
“Upon examination by Mr. Susoni, she testified:
Q. Have you seen him again?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you see him here now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is he?
A. Over there.
“The Court: Why is Fundador in the courtroom if he was called as a witness?
“Mr. Susoni: I apologize to Your Honor because I had my back turned, and now that Your Honor has made that statement, [123] I know he is here, and I gave a note to the marshal to place the witnesses under the rules of the Court as soon as they arrived.
“The Court: He can not ask the name of every person who enters the room, nor can he forbid them to enter the courtroom. That depends on the purpose and the morals of the person who is called as a witness. He has testified in other cases and he knows that the witnesses do not go into the courtroom to hear the other witnesses testify, and he should know his responsibility as a witness.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: We are going to take exception to Your Honor’s statement.
“The Court: Exception is taken. But you can not argue it in the presence of the jury.
“Marshal: I do not know the witnesses. But if ...
“The Court: The marshal has no explanation. The gentleman came in. The attorney has apologized and this gentleman should be placed under the rules of the Court:
“Fundador Rodríguez Viruet: Your Honor, I . . .
“The Court: You can not speak and interrupt the work of the Court. You are sentenced by the Court to pay a five-dollar fine or serve five days in jail. Marshal, take care of the defendant. The ladies and gentlemen of the jury are going to retire for a moment while the attorney raises a question of law. Marshal, you may withdraw the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Mr. Torres’ objection to the Court’s statement will be entered upon the' record.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: We believe, Your Honor, that the statements which Your Honor has made in the presence of the jury to the effect that the presence of one of the witnesses for the defense in the courtroom while another witness is testifying is a question of morale and qualification of the witness, that a witness who has appeared in other prosecutions should know his responsibility and duty as such, are highly injurious to the rights of our defendant. We also take exception to the fact that a witness for the defense has been punished for contempt in the presence of the jury, which in our opinion is also injurious to the rights of our defendant.
“The Court: I wish to state in the record that the witness guilty of contempt to whom colleague Torres refers, interrupted [124] the order of the Court by talking in the corridor for the public without the Court’s authorization, and that his interruption was not proper.
“Mr. Susoni: Your Honor, I believe that Your Honor did not hear the witness correctly; he was asking the Court leave . . .
“The Court: The colleague can not allege a defense in favor of that gentleman now.
“Mr. Susoni: Your Honor made reference to the witness in this case, who is a witness in the case and is going to testify, and I am going to ask Your Honor to instruct the jury accordingly. Fundador Rodríguez Viruet was not, in my opinion, disrespectful to Your Honor. When he was talking he was interrupted.
“The Court: The colleague has made a poor visual interpretation. The colleague is mistaken in saying that Viruet was asking leave of the Court; the witness spoke and after he spoke and I punished him for contempt, he raised his hand to ask for leave as do the children in school to ask permission to talk. That is why the Court has adjudged him in contempt, because he interrupted the order, the Judge’s attention, because he interrupted him with his statements. He had absolutely no right to talk, and no pronouncement had been made against him, and the attention of the attorneys was being called to the fact that one of the witnesses for the defense was in the courtroom, which we learned from the witness’ testimony.
“Mr. Susoni: For the purposes of the record, we wish to say that the statements which Your Honor made in the presence of the jury, particularly in connection with a witness who is material to the trial of the case, tend to injure the witness’ morale and, hence, his credibility. We do not question the Court’s authority to preserve the order and respect of the Court.
“The Court: Bring back the jury.”
When the jury returned to the courtroom, the Court proceeded with the examination of the witness, at the termination of which it adjourned until the next day, June 11, 1954. The jury remained under the marshal’s custody.
Work was resumed the following day during which several witnesses testified; and in the afternoon session, while [125] the defense was cross-examining the witness Agustín Ma-ssanet, the following took place (Tr. Evid. 225-31) :
“Q. When you saw the commotion caused by the facts which you have related, did persons jump out of the window, didn’t they run out through the door?
“A. They ran out through the door, not through the window.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice Santana Becerra
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Superior Court, Arecibo Part, found Francisco M. Susoni and Tomás Torres Cortés, attorneys at law, guilty of contempt and sentenced them to 30 days in jail. Both have appealed from the judgment.
The trial of the case filed by The People of Puerto Rico against Pedro Matos Matos for a violation of § 192 of the [122] Penal Code 1 was being held in the Arecibo Part of the Superior Court. The trial commenced on June 10, 1954. The defendant was represented by Mr. Franciscso M. Susoni and Mr. Tomás Torres Cortés. The defense announced that Mr. Baltasar Quiñones Elias, Mr. José Luis Feliú Pesquera, and Mr. Archilla Laugier were also attorneys in the case and requested that their absence be excused. The jury having been constituted and a question of law raised by the defense having been overruled, the defendant was arraigned, again he pleaded not guilty, and the judge ordered that the witnesses be called and sworn. The witnesses were sworn; however, the names of those called by either party do not appear from the record.
Elba González Alvarez, the first witness for the prosecution, made reference in the course of her testimony to Funda-dor Rodríguez Yiruet, and shortly thereafter the following occurred, as it appears from the transcript of the stenographic notes (Tr. Evid. 112-16) :
“Upon examination by the Judge, she testified:
Q. Do you know Fundador?
A. I saw him that day for the first time.
“Upon examination by Mr. Susoni, she testified:
Q. Have you seen him again?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you see him here now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is he?
A. Over there.
“The Court: Why is Fundador in the courtroom if he was called as a witness?
“Mr. Susoni: I apologize to Your Honor because I had my back turned, and now that Your Honor has made that statement, [123] I know he is here, and I gave a note to the marshal to place the witnesses under the rules of the Court as soon as they arrived.
“The Court: He can not ask the name of every person who enters the room, nor can he forbid them to enter the courtroom. That depends on the purpose and the morals of the person who is called as a witness. He has testified in other cases and he knows that the witnesses do not go into the courtroom to hear the other witnesses testify, and he should know his responsibility as a witness.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: We are going to take exception to Your Honor’s statement.
“The Court: Exception is taken. But you can not argue it in the presence of the jury.
“Marshal: I do not know the witnesses. But if ...
“The Court: The marshal has no explanation. The gentleman came in. The attorney has apologized and this gentleman should be placed under the rules of the Court:
“Fundador Rodríguez Viruet: Your Honor, I . . .
“The Court: You can not speak and interrupt the work of the Court. You are sentenced by the Court to pay a five-dollar fine or serve five days in jail. Marshal, take care of the defendant. The ladies and gentlemen of the jury are going to retire for a moment while the attorney raises a question of law. Marshal, you may withdraw the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Mr. Torres’ objection to the Court’s statement will be entered upon the' record.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: We believe, Your Honor, that the statements which Your Honor has made in the presence of the jury to the effect that the presence of one of the witnesses for the defense in the courtroom while another witness is testifying is a question of morale and qualification of the witness, that a witness who has appeared in other prosecutions should know his responsibility and duty as such, are highly injurious to the rights of our defendant. We also take exception to the fact that a witness for the defense has been punished for contempt in the presence of the jury, which in our opinion is also injurious to the rights of our defendant.
“The Court: I wish to state in the record that the witness guilty of contempt to whom colleague Torres refers, interrupted [124] the order of the Court by talking in the corridor for the public without the Court’s authorization, and that his interruption was not proper.
“Mr. Susoni: Your Honor, I believe that Your Honor did not hear the witness correctly; he was asking the Court leave . . .
“The Court: The colleague can not allege a defense in favor of that gentleman now.
“Mr. Susoni: Your Honor made reference to the witness in this case, who is a witness in the case and is going to testify, and I am going to ask Your Honor to instruct the jury accordingly. Fundador Rodríguez Viruet was not, in my opinion, disrespectful to Your Honor. When he was talking he was interrupted.
“The Court: The colleague has made a poor visual interpretation. The colleague is mistaken in saying that Viruet was asking leave of the Court; the witness spoke and after he spoke and I punished him for contempt, he raised his hand to ask for leave as do the children in school to ask permission to talk. That is why the Court has adjudged him in contempt, because he interrupted the order, the Judge’s attention, because he interrupted him with his statements. He had absolutely no right to talk, and no pronouncement had been made against him, and the attention of the attorneys was being called to the fact that one of the witnesses for the defense was in the courtroom, which we learned from the witness’ testimony.
“Mr. Susoni: For the purposes of the record, we wish to say that the statements which Your Honor made in the presence of the jury, particularly in connection with a witness who is material to the trial of the case, tend to injure the witness’ morale and, hence, his credibility. We do not question the Court’s authority to preserve the order and respect of the Court.
“The Court: Bring back the jury.”
When the jury returned to the courtroom, the Court proceeded with the examination of the witness, at the termination of which it adjourned until the next day, June 11, 1954. The jury remained under the marshal’s custody.
Work was resumed the following day during which several witnesses testified; and in the afternoon session, while [125] the defense was cross-examining the witness Agustín Ma-ssanet, the following took place (Tr. Evid. 225-31) :
“Q. When you saw the commotion caused by the facts which you have related, did persons jump out of the window, didn’t they run out through the door?
“A. They ran out through the door, not through the window.
“Q. Did you not testify before that you had seen people jumping out of the window?
“A. No, sir.
“Prosecuting Attorney Ruiz: He has not said that at any time. He has not said that anyone jumped out of the window.
“Mr. Susoni: I am laying down the foundation to challenge the witness’ credibility, laying the bases through his testimony at the first trial.
“District Attorney Ruiz: He can not use the testimony given at the first trial; the testimony given at the first trial appears in the record.
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: We are referring to this record, Your Honor.
“Mr. Susoni: It is the testimony of a witness in connection with which we wish to lay down the bases. When testifying in connection with the same facts and the same criminal action he gave a different account, and we ask Your Honor to lay down the bases to use the testimony given by him in another sense.
“The Court: The testimony which he gave in open court?
“Mr. Susoni: In open court.
“The Court: The fact is that he has a right to challenge the witness’ testimony for having made statements which are contrary to those which he is making now as to time, place, circumstances.
“District Attorney Ruiz: If your Honor will please, and since those statements or any other statements are those which the witness made, and since they appear in a public record, he must show him that testimony. The witness should be given an opportunity to refresh his memory, confronting the witness’ first testimony with that which he is giving now.
“The Court: [We presume that Mr. Susoni was doing the talking.] We requested the record of the case; we took the [126] steps; now we have a right to lay down the bases according to The People’s theory.
“The Court: The Magistrate has not been asked for anything since the commencement of this trial; the Magistrate was asked, as dilatory tactics, to order the stenographer to make a transcript of the evidence presented at the trial, and to continue the trial until the transcript was made. The Court refused to continue the trial. That situation is clearly stated in the ruling of the Court, and he is given an opportunity to bring the transcript to the trial in case it is needed in the course of the prosecution. The District Attorney’s objection is sustained.
“Mr. Susoni: We respectfully take exception.
“The Court: That is not the way of challenging or of laying down the bases, nor have you come under the law as it stands in Puerto Rico.
“Mr. Susoni: For the purposes of the record, we take ex-, ception to the ruling of the Court and to the statements made by the Court as respects dilatory tactics. We have the right to believe that, when an attorney resorts to the Court with a judicial petition, he does so in the belief that he is doing so for the best of the defendant’s rights; and we believe that those statements, made in the presence of the jury, tend to bring into disrepute the honest representation of the attorneys in the discharge of their functions as officers of the Court.
“The Court: The ladies and gentlemen of the jury do not have to judge the cases by the honesty or dishonesty, or by the low or high morals of the defendant’s representatives. The ladies and gentlemen of the jury must rely on the conviction of their conscience, on the basis of the evidence presented by The People and by the defendant, not on the tactics of the attorneys or of the district attorney. The ladies and gentlemen must bear this in mind when the time comes to judge the case, and you should in nowise prejudice yourselves against the defendant.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: We take exception . . .
“The Court: If it is in that connection, the attorney will please be seated.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: For the purposes of the record . . .
“The Court: The attorney will please be seated, else you will be punished for contempt. The incident is over. I repeat, will you please be seated or be punished for contempt.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: It’s a new question, Your Honor.
[127] “The Court: Just a moment, the jury may withdraw. Will the colleague please rise. Whereas, Tomás Torres Cortés, attorney in the case, rose from his seat thereby disobeying the Court’s order upon the termination of the incident regarding the exception taken by Mr. Susoni, which Mr. Susoni argued at length. Whereas, the Court ordered colleague Torres Cor-tés to be seated and not to interrupt the proceedings of the Court. Whereas, the colleague obstinately and contumaciously disobeyed the order of the Court. Therefore, this Court believes that the colleague has disobeyed the order of the Court and sentences him to pay a fine of one dollar', or, in default thereof, to serve one day in jail. The Court will recess for the purpose of determining whether the sentence will be executed. (Recess.)
“Marshal: The session of the Court is resumed.
“Mr. Susoni: I wish to inform Your Honor that a very deplorable error has been committed, and that is that the exception to be taken in this case was not the one which was taken; it was to the last words which Your Honor pronounced. When the colleague rose, I was going to do the same; I was going to take exception to the last words which Your Honor pronounced, which were not objected to nor incorporated in the record of the Court after Your Honor disposed of the question which I raised and argued, and then Your Honor addressed the jury. I must confess that I feel hurt by the words which Your Honor pronounced in classing attorneys into low and high morals. I believe that I have always discharged faithfully and uninterruptedly in my life my mission as a lawyer. I can not say that I have not erred; I err daily. I assure Your Honor that I place myself at your mercy for any action you may deem fit, but I feel so deeply hurt that I can not continue in this case. 1 can not help telling you so.
“The Court: It seems strange that Francisco Susoni, Jr., a bright young man, although he is in the last stages of youth, who has always been so courteous and a gentleman, could have interpreted in such a regrettable manner the statement of the Court in telling the jury that the jury did not have to take into account the statements made by the attorneys or the high or low morals of the attorneys in the cases, because those statements were not addressed to the district attorney or to the attorneys for the defense. I believe that the colleague should be sure of the statements because I have the moral and civic [128] courage to ratify everything I say and do, and when I commit an error, I am the son of a Spaniard, Spanish blood runs directly through my veins; that at all times and places and through all the ages I have shown high-mindedness and, like a gentleman, I would have made amends. So, neither the colleague nor the other colleague should think that I even intended to hurt you with those words. Regarding the other question, that he rose in order to take exception, the Court can not accept that as an excuse because he should have obeyed the order of the Court to be seated. The Court then takes the statements made by the colleague as a motion for reconsideration and, therefore, overrules the same. Bring the jury back. Do the parties accept that the jury is the same and that it is complete?
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: Yes, Your Honor.
“Mr. Susoni: Yes, Your Honor.”
The defense proceeded until the termination of the cross-examination of this witness. Judge Gladys Lasa testified next, and the session proceeded during the evening of that day, June 11. The evidence for The People ended with the cross-examination of witness Juan J. Torres. The defense stated its theory and called to the witness stand its first witness, Fundador Rodríguez Viruet. The following appears from the record of the cross-examination by the district attorney (Tr. Evid. 284-85) :
“Q. Mr. Fundador Viruet . . .
“A. Rodriguez Viruet, please.
“The Court: Will you please leave your hands alone, stop gesturing with your hand; that is not the way to behave in Court.
“Mr. Susoni: We wish to take exception to the statements of the Court.
“The Court: Let it be stated in the record that the witness has raised the left hand and with the index finger has pointed to the district attorney in a rude and threatening manner, telling him that that is not his family name; that the Court has been compelled to call the witness’ attention as it would to any person who does not behave properly in a courtroom.
“Mr. Susoni: We respectfully take exception.”
[129] The examination of this witness having terminated, the' defense called William Pérez to the witness stand. During the cross-examination by the district attorney, the following occurred which we transcribe herein (Tr. Evid. 302-11) ::
“The Court: Not aloud, for yourself.
“Q. Did you read it?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Sir, from this testimony given by Gladys Lasa will you please tell us if the discussion, if all that discussion took place-after 1:00 p.m., and will you tell us if in answer to that question you said that the discussion started about half past twelve and that by half past one you had not reached an agreement, and that’s when the people started to leave.
“A. Yes, sir, but there is one point there.
“Q. I know there are a lot of points because there are many i’s.
“A. I mean that they had not reached an agreement because there was talking inside the registration place, but not that Mr. Matos was inside the registration place at that hour.
“Q. Did you not answer Miss Gladys Lasa that the discussion started at half past twelve and that the registration started at 1:80 p.m.?
“A. Although that’s what it says there in part, I know that several persons had registered despite the commotion and the; noise, but the registration was delayed for that reason.
“Upon examination by the Court, he testified:
“Q. For what reason?
“A. The people inside the premises, the commotion, the agglomeration itself, the people who were around the tables.
“Q. What about the discussion?
“A. At that moment there was none.
“Q. Was there any when the discussion was going on?
“A. That was before one o’clock.
“Q. Between whom was the discussion? The discussion to-which you refer there, which the district attorney says that, you mentioned?
“A. It was a matter that came up, because Mr. Matos did not complete the petition; but then he had gone out.
“Q. With whom did he argue? With you?
“A. No, sir.
[130] “Q. With whom did he argue? I am asking you, with whom did Mr. Matos argue, if he did argue? Do not evade my question, Please answer.
“A. Let me explain.
“Q. With whom did Mr. Matos argue, with whom?
“Mr. Susoni: If Your Honor will allow me.
“The Court: Colleagues, please do not interrupt the Court.
“Q. With whom was M. Matos arguing? I am asking you to explain. Then you may give an explanation.
“A. I do not recall.
“Q. You do not recall with whom he was arguing?
“A. No, sir.
“Mr. Susoni: We wish to take exception to the manner in which the Magistrate has conducted the cross-examination. We believe that the witness is being intimidated in such a way that it is impossible for him to give a normal, calm, and fair testimony. The record shows that he has never shown disrespect to Your Honor. However, the loud and impulsive tone of Your Honor tends to frighten those persons who are not normally used to these proceedings.
“The Court: For the purposes of the record, I wish to say that colleague Susoni has deviated from a reality, from the truth, which the attorneys and gentlemen are bound to tell, by insinuating that the Judge has tried to intimidate the witness. If the Judge has raised his voice, it has been for the purpose of orientating the witness and asking him with whom Pedro Matos Matos was arguing. I am sorry that colleague Susoni has deviated from the facts in such a regrettable way, because I would not dare intimidate anyone and much less when I preside a court. What I want is the truth from everyone, whether it affects or benefits one of the parties.
“Mr. Susoni Lens: We respectfully take exception.
“Upon examination by District Attorney Ruiz, he testified:
“Q. My question is whether or not it is true that Miss Gladys Lasa asked you . . .
“The Court: The stenographer asks for a recess. (Recess.)
“Marshal: The session of the Court is resumed.
“The Court: Do the attorneys for the defendant and the prosecuting attorneys accept that the jury is the same and that it is complete?
“Mr. Susoni: Yes, Your Honor.
[131] “District Attorney Ruiz: Yes, Your Honor.
“Mr. Susoni: Your Honor, I wish to inform Your Honor that I am withdrawing from the case now. I can not work any more under these circumstances, and I am ready to accept any punishment which Your Honor may wish to impose on me.
“The Court: Do you feel sick?
“Mr. Susoni: I do not feel sick physically. I feel sick spiritually and morally; my condition is such that I can not proceed with the case.
“The Court: Spiritual illness can not restrain the intelligence and integrity of character and the responsibility of an attorney, nor can it mitigate the colleague’s duty. The colleague’s duty is to assist this defendant until the termination of the trial, and it was agreed that we would work all night and would sacrifice ourselves in order to please the attorney for the defendant. However, if the colleague feels physically ill, the Court has no objection to continuing the trial of this case until such time as it is reasonably possible for the colleague.
“Mr. Susoni: It is not physically. I was in a condition to work the whole night and tomorrow. It is only the circumstances in this proceeding that have placed me in such a state of mind that I am in no position to do my duty, as required by my sense of responsibility.
“The Court: The Court believes that there is no reason why the colleague should not be in a position to proceed with the defense of his client. The Court can not grant leave to the colleague to withdraw. The Court regrets that the colleague should make such a decision, for you should realize that it would be prejudicial to the administration of justice, that it would be necessary to postpone a case, dismiss a jury, adjourn, without any justification. Moreover, I wish to make it clear, if I said anything that hurt the colleague, which I believe I did not, that affected the colleague personally and that has annoyed the colleague, he knows that the defendant who should be presumed innocent can not be blamed for this annoyance, and that there is sufficient time and sufficient opportunity to discuss those rea-sonings, those questions which could have annoyed either one or the other person. I believe that the proposition I am making to the colleague is clear, and the colleague should continue to assist the defendant and to assimilate anything that in the opinion of the colleague could have annoyed him, after listening to the explanation I have given him.
[132] “Mr. Susoni: I have reached this point making an effort, but I confess to Your Honor that I can not proceed.
“The Court: The Court is very sorry, but for that reason alone it can not excuse you from assisting this defendant.
“Mr. Susoni: Then Your Honor may make any ruling you may deem proper.
“The Court: The ruling is that the colleague shall continue to do his duty by assisting the defendant, I mean, if he is not physically disable.
“Mr. Susoni Lens: I can not continue, Your Honor.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: Our position is identical with that of •colleague Susoni. We also announce that we are withdrawing .from this case in view of the circumstances brought about during the proceeding, and we also place ourselves at your mercy.
“The Court: Do the colleagues realize what that means prof essionally ?
“Mr. Susoni: Fully, Your Honor.
“Mr. Cortés: Fully, Your Honor.
“The Court: The Court orders that we proceed with the Marshal, please bring the •case. J'ust a moment, colleague. •colleagues back to the courtroom.
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: May it please the Court. We are going to move the Court for a recess.
“The Court: For what reason? What reason does the district attorney have to move for a recess?
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: We withdraw the motion .and move the Court to order the jury to retire.
“The Court: The jury may retire. Marshal, please withdraw the jury. Which is the motion?
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: A recess, Your Honor.
“The Court: On what grounds?
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: That the situation brought .•about suddenly has possibly created excitement, and we would respectfully suggest the Court, and we do so, to adjourn until the situation is calmed down.
“The Court: I believe that the persons who are working here are well educated and should control their impulses and ■continue to do their duty as their intelligence and responsibility may demand. It seems to me that the question is simple, clear. What happens is that Mr. Susoni made an imputation to the Judge and the Judge answered it the way he wanted to. That .appears in the record. The question between Mr. Susoni and [133] myself is personal and has nothing to do with our duties as attorneys, and also with the oath which we have taken to do our duty as a judge. I believe there is no reason for anything •else, unless it is something senseless and beyond the normality of a talented man. Recess.
“Marshal: The Court will recess.
“The Court: The session is resumed. The Court orders the marshal no to permit the district attorneys and the attorneys to leave the courthouse until its work is terminated. Recess.
“Marshal: The Court resumes its session.
“The Court: Are the parties ready to proceed?
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: Yes, we are ready, Your Honor.
“District Attorney Ruiz: We are ready.
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: May it please the Court. Since it is a quarter to 3:00 a.m. and we have been working all day, with the exception of short recesses for lunch and supper, and in view also of the fact that the court stenographer, Mr. Chacón, has complained that his hand is tired from taking down so many stenographic notes, we respectfully move for the continuance of this case to next Monday at 9:00 a.m.
“The Court: If the other party is agreeable.
“Mr. Susoni: No objection.
“The Court: Is the defendant agreeable with the attorney’s decision ?
“Defendant: Yes, sir.
“The Court: Bring the jury. (The jury returns to the courtroom.) Do the parties agree that the jury is the same and that it is complete?
“District Attorney Vera Mercado: Yes, Your Honor.
“Mr. Susoni Yes, Your Honor.
“The Court: There is a motion pending before the Court regarding the continuance of the case for Monday at 9:00 a.m. Both parties are agreeable to this proposition. The Court is going to decide favorably as requested in the motion, and the witness is summoned to appear on Monday at 9:00 a.m. He must appear in Court to take again the witness stand. Marshal, are there any other witnesses?
“Marshal: Two witnesses.
“The Court: Those witnesses must be summoned to appear on Monday at 9:00 a.m.; also, the attorneys, the witnesses, [134] and the district attorneys. Since the Court has restricted the jury, I want the consent of the parties in order that the jurors may retire to their homes. If the parties are not agreeable, the Court would have to subject the jury to the rules which were stipulated at the beginning.
“Mr. Susoni: There is no objection on the part of the defense.
“District Attorney Ruiz: Nor on the part of The People.
“The Court: In that case you may retire to your homes. Both parties are agreed that you should retire. Of course, with the same admonitions which the Court has been making eyery day.”
When the session was resumed on Monday, June 14, 1954, at 9:00 a.m., the judge announced that the defendant and the attorneys who were serving during the trial of the case were present. We copy from the transcript of the stenographic record (Tr. Evid. 2-6, hearing of June 14, 1954) :
“Mr. Susoni: On Friday, at 3:15 a.m., we appeared in open court and reached a gentleman’s agreement between the district attorneys and the attorneys, that we would participate in the recognition of the jury entity and the motion for continuance proposed on Saturday, at that hour, by the district attorneys. We were agreeable to that proposition in the capacity in which we appeared, in the understanding that our position would not be deemed to have changed in any manner whatever, which we repeat here today in order that there be no gap in the record: Since no explanation was made on Saturday about our appearance making it understood that we were resuming our representation, we wish to say that the position of the attorneys is the same today and we move for leave to withdraw.
“The Court: In order to clarify the statements made by colleague Susoni, the Court wishes to state that no stipulation was set forth in the record conditioned upon the fact that the position of the colleagues and of the defendant today, Monday, in connection with which the continuance of the hearing was ordered, would be the same as it was. Should we therefore take it to mean that Mr. Susoni ratifies and insists on his position which he announced early Saturday morning, that is, [135] Friday evening going on Saturday, in the sense of withdrawing from the representation of the defendant?
“Mr. Susoni: I regret that my colleagues, the district attorneys, did not inform Your Honor of our reiterated agreement, and I regret it deeply because otherwise we would have set it forth in the record, as we are doing now. We did it so that Your Honor would not think that we were going to reproduce it, but that the situation was the same as that of Friday and we so ratify it with all respect due Your Honor.
“The Court: The approval of the stipulation was by word of mouth. So was the district attorney’s motion and the colleague’s acquiescence. And the Court, after consulting both the attorneys for the defense and the district attorneys whether that was their stipulation and obtaining their acquiescence, granted the same and nothing appeared in the record. The Court was under the impression that the parties would appear today after having pondered on the incidents and their attitude so that the rights of •other parties would not be impaired, the rights of The People of Puerto Rico, of the community of the people of Puerto Rico, and the rights of the defendant which are at stake; and the Judge was of the opinion that the colleagues would think it over and conclude that personal matters, injuries which could have hurt their feelings and affect their personality or prestige as to their capacity, the right of the parties, etc., would be resolved in ■some other way, that is, through reply, through review, in harmony with legal provisions. And in the belief that there is still time, there is still time for such a high-minded, intelligent, and well-educated man as Mr. Susoni and as Mr. Torres Cor-tés, who is no less educated and intelligent, to meditate intellectually and sentimentally on the fact that this position is unique, difficult, which would place all the parties in a position to take some action with results perhaps not entirely satisfactory and harmonious, not between the same parties involved but in the community where the supreme judge observes and meditates, and who judges everyone, although silently and without a right •of review or appeal in the opinion of the citizens, of all the citizens who keep an eye on public men and hold them close to their hearts and to their conscience, and thus judge them without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, the Judge believes that we should not let that happen. I urge the colleagues, not only as a Judge but as an attorney and a gen[136] tleman, to think it over and not to place yourselves in such a position as to compel the Court to take legal action. It is 12:20 p.m. The colleagues have time until 1:30 p.m. to think it over, to ponder over all the questions raised, and to realize that you live in a land of laws, that the codes are open, that the doctrines are open doors for everyone, and that any error committed by a court may be cured by a higher court. Not only an error which may affect a defendant, but an error of the judge who administers justice, is likewise reviewable; and the Supreme Court in its yellow books indicates the good points and the errors committed by the lower judges. For my part, such practice is sound, I approve of it, and it gives me great satisfaction to know that in the three years of my tenure not one single judgment which I have rendered has been reversed. If ever there is a reversal, I shall be glad because I would learn more. It would be a new doctrine that would be placed in my hands, and my heart and my conscience would know how to use it in future cases. So, the colleagues will have until 1:30 p.m. to meditate over this matter. It being 12:21 p.m., the Court adjourns until half past one when it will proceed with this case. Therefore, the district attorneys, the attorneys, and the defendant are formally summoned to appear in Court at half past one in this courtroom. Recess until half past one. The witnesses, attorneys, and defendants who were summoned in any other case are summoned, and anyone who fails to appear will be punished for contempt.”
The trial proceeded at two o’clock and the jury appeared in. court. The judge announced that the defendant and his attorneys were present, and asked the parties if they were satisfied that the jury was the same and that it was complete, to which the district attorney answered that he was, and Mr. Susoni said (Tr. Evid. 7-16, hearing of June 14) :
“Mr. Susoni: Before making any allegation, we wish to inform, before making any allegation regarding the jury, that we ratify the position which we took this morning.
“The Court: Irrespective of the ratification, let us find out whether the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, 14 in number, are the same jurors who were sitting in this case.
“Mr. Susoni: We have no objection.
[137] “The Court: Are the witnesses for The People and for the ■defense under the rules of the Court?
“Deputy Marshal: Those for the defense.
“The Court: Who was the last witness to be cross-examined by the district attorney?
“District Attorney Ruiz: We were cross-examining the second witness for the defense.
“The Court: We should proceed with the cross-examination.
“Mr. Susoni: We move for leave to withdraw.
“The Court: The Court can not grant leave to withdraw because you are representing the defendant in this case, which has commenced and all the evidence for The People has been heard and the evidence for the defendant was being offered.
""“Mr. Susoni: We have stated the reasons why we can not proceed with this case, and we urge the Court to take such action as may be proper because we are not going to represent the case. If we are compelled to stay we will, but the defendant will not be represented by us.
“The Court: You are ordered to continue to bear the representation of the defendant, exercising the same functions which you had been exercising as attorneys for his defense, because that is your duty as attorneys; and, since according to the Puerto Rican jurisprudence, the attorneys are officers of the Court, the Court orders that you, colleagues, friends, and attorneys, continue as officers of the Court to perform your ■duty by representing the defendant.
“Mr. Susoni: We respectfully wish to inform the Magistrate that we have stated the reason why we can not continue and we withdraw from the case. If we are compelled by force, we will stay here but the defendant will not be represented by these attorneys.
“The Court: The Court does not compel nor will compel .you to stay by force, by the strength of force, but appeals to your intelligence and to your conscience and urges you to stay by the force of reason and by the force of your duty, as attorneys and officers of the Court, not to permit that the high ■esteem in which lawyers are held when they are in the exercise -of their functions as attorney be blemished. Colleagues, this is the only force imposed upon you, that you do your duty by representing and assisting the defendant, which you undertook two or three days ago.
[138] “Mr. Susoni: That is your opinion, Your Honor, which we respect, and for that very reason we believe that we ought not to stay in this case because we can not.
“The Court: We need not insist or argue further because I have tendered you my friendship, comprehension, on a silver platter full of nobleness. I have appealed to you in order to avoid any trouble to you and to the community and to the defendant. If you do not wish to accept that silver platter full' of nobleness and persuasion, the Court will have to act in accordance with law. So, let us proceed with the trial.
“(The two attorneys for the defendant leave the table for the attorneys and walk toward the public.)
“The Court: Do not move from there. Marshal, bring the-colleagues within the railing. Bring them inside the railing. (The marshal brings back Mr. Torres Cortés.) Please come,. Mr. Susoni. Please come back. (Mr. Susoni goes back.) Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please retire for a moment..
“(The gentlemen of the jury retire from the courtroom.)
“The Court: Do the colleagues insist on that attitude?
“Mr. Susoni: Yes, sir.
“Mr. Torres Cortés: Yes, sir.
“The Court: Do you disobey the order of the Court to-continue to represent the defendant?
“Mr. Susoni: In order to obey a superior order, which is. one’s inability to represent adequately a defendant.
“The Court: Are you physically ill?
“Mr. Susoni: Not physically.
“The Court: Is the other attorney physically disable?
“Mr. Torres Cortés: Not physically.
“The Court: The Court is going to make the following-order: . . .”
Thereupon the Judge proceeded to sentence the attorneys for contempt imposing a 30-day jail sentence. The proceedings continued as follows:
“The Court: “In this case against Pedro Matos Matos, G. 52— 131, the defendant is sitting in the same chair, but he is deprived of legal representation because the two colleagues who represented him withdrew from the defense. Does the defendant: wish to say anything in connection with this situation?
[139] “Defendant Matos: Actually, I am not a lawyer and can not say anything- about the situation.
“The Court: Do you condemn that attitude or are you agreeable ?
“Defendant Matos: All I can do is inform the Court that, as far as I am concerned, the attorneys continue to be my attorneys.
“The Court: The two of them together with the others continue to be your attorneys?
“Defendant Matos: The legal point raised is completely unusual for me because I am not a lawyer. I don’t know in which way any statement which I may make or which may be spread upon the record may affect me adversely or favorably. For that reason, I would prefer that the Court give me time to consult some lawyer or someone, because I really. . . .
“The Court: What the Court only wants to know is, not that you make statements which may affect you or not, but to find out, however, whether or not you are satisfied with the conduct of your attorneys, and you are therefore advised that you enjoy immunity in the sense that any statement that you may make and which in your opinion may affect your case will not be held against you.
“Defendant Matos: Regarding my attorney’s conduct, with .all respect due the Court I must truthfully say that I approve of the conduct of my attorneys.
“The Court: You say that the attorneys are your attorneys. I want to know if I am wrong so that you may correct me. Do you mean to say that you still want them to be your attorneys and also the other attorney?
“Defendant Matos: No, sir, because if I should insist that they be my attorneys it would be necessary for me, in order to insist that they proceed with the defense of my case, to contradict what I just said to the Court. I understand that, in addition to Mr. Susoni and Mr. Torres Cortés, Luis Archilla Llaugier