Betz v. State, 99 Md.App. 60, 635 A.2d 77 (1994): Many judges have experienced aggravating—sometimes even defiant—conduct on the part of lawyers and others (just as many lawyers, and others, have experienced aggravating conduct on the part of judges), and, in the press of attempting to move dockets and resolve cases fairly and efficiently, the experience can cause instant irritation. Judges, too, are human and have human emotions; they get angry, often for good reason. But, 57 S.W.2d 916, 920-21 (1988) (refusing to overturn conviction because, under the totality of the circumstances, including a curative instruction, trial court’s finding defense counsel in contempt in front of the jury was not reversible error); Burris v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 210, 214, 276 S.W.2d 260, 262-63 (1953) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 830, 76 S.Ct. 61, 100
holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant holding no error was committed when trial court held defense counsel in contempt in front of the jury though it would have been the better practice to reprimand counsel and impose the fine in the absence of the jury holding that trial judges critical remarks directed to defense counsel and his being adjudged in contempt of court all in the presence of the jury violated defendants state constitutional right to counsel holding that a civil contempt defendant has a right to a jury trial when the act of contempt was not committed in the presence of the court and when the incarceration is in part punitive holding that the trial judge exerted improper influence by in the presence of the jury ordering the arrest of defense counsel interrupting counsel frequently holding counsel in contempt