Okay, I get it that the cell phone is one of those great modern conveniences that we can no longer live without. 

That being said, how many times during the day do you find yourself wishing that you could just rip a cell phone out of some annoying person’s hands and stomp it into little pieces? 

There’s the shopper at the grocery store who holds everyone up at the checkout line because she just can’t bring herself to put her cell phone down long enough to empty her cart and pay the cashier. 

We’ve all come across the guy on the road who is so engrossed in cell phone chatter that he doesn’t notice the line of drivers behind him who are peeved because he’s going ten miles below the speed limit. 

Of course, the top villain is the one whose cell phone goes off at the theater, ruining the best part of a movie. That guy we leave his cell phone alone but string up by his thumbs. 

There’s no better antidote to the rude cell phone user than the short-tempered judge. 

That’s what Michelle McRoy found out to her misfortune. 

McRoy attended a juvenile proceeding at the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida. At the commencement of the proceeding, Judge Anthony Johnson instructed everyone to turn off their cell phones. 

Later in the proceeding, McRoy’s cell phone went off and Judge Johnson pounced. 

The judge found McRoy in direct criminal contempt, ordered the forfeiture of her cell phone, and directed the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to destroy the device. 

Chalk one up for those of us who endure rude cell phone use in silence. 

We might sympathize with McRoy. She claimed that she had turned off her cell phone at the beginning of the proceeding as instructed. 

According to McRoy, she gave the phone to her sister so she could make a call outside the courtroom. McRoy’s sister returned the phone without turning it off, and McRoy admitted that she did not check whether the phone was off. 

Last week, a sympathetic panel of judges on the Florida Court of Appeals found that Judge Johnson had gone too far. 

As we all know, contempt is “an act tending to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or to lessen the court’s authority or dignity.” 

Direct criminal contempt is summary punishment for conduct that occurs in the presence of the court. 

The Florida Court of Appeal found a technical problem with the contempt citation against McRoy. 

Under Florida law, a contempt citation must include a recital of facts underlying the charge. Judge Johnson found McRoy to be in contempt without any oral or written findings of fact, so this alone warranted a reversal of the contempt citation. 

But the state court of appeals said that it would reverse McRoy’s conviction in any event, apparently thinking that Judge Johnson had overreacted to a relatively minor disruption in the courtroom. 

The court observed that “there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. McRoy’s actions, annoying as they undoubtedly were, embarrassed, hindered or obstructed the court in the administration of justice, or lessened the court’s authority or dignity.” 

The court of appeals recognized that “trial judges must be allowed to control their courtrooms,” but said that “because of the potency of the powerful remedy of criminal contempt, we must carefully guard the requirements for its use, premised only on indisputable record support.” (McRoy v. Florida) 

The overturning of McRoy’s conviction might be a disappointment for those of us looking for red meat in the fight against inconsiderate cell phone use. 

But to all appearances, McRoy was the victim of an innocent mistake.

And the mere fact that she had to go all the way up to a state court of appeals to get relief should send a stern warning to lawyers, parties and spectators who mindlessly carry their cell phones into the court room. 

- Pat Murphy

patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com