other people, judges have the sovereign power to punish, to deprive persons of their liberty and property, and that alone requires that they restrain their irritation. Punishment for contempt should never be imposed in anger, as an immediate emotionally reflexive response. Id. at 489, 677 A.2d at 1090. Applying this reasoning to the case at hand, we note that the disagreements between the judge and counsel that resul ; Alley v. State, 619 So.2d 1013, 1014-15 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (reversing conviction when trial court deliberately threatened defense counsel with contempt before the jury and, on another occasion, stated to him, “You’re liable to wind up in jail with him [the defendant] if you keep talking out.”); cf. State v. Collins, 66 Wash.2d 71, 74, 400 P.2d 793, 794-95 (1965) (<HOLDING>). But see Moulding v. State, 296 Ark. 328, 337,
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 holding that the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of state and federal criminal proceedings 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 defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument 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