In Re Siegel

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioners, attorneys representing a defendant in a criminal case, seek a writ of habeas corpus, contending that they have been illegally imprisoned for nonpayment of fines imposed upon them for contempt of court during the course of the trial. Upon review of the petition, the points and authorities in opposition filed by the Attorney General, and the record, which includes the order of contempt, the minute order remanding petitioners to jail, and transcripts of proceedings relating to the contempts, we have concluded that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy, that an order to show cause would add nothing to the full presentation already made, and that the writ should issue forthwith.

Our review of the record, in accordance with the rules set forth in

In re Buckley

(1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 247 [110 Cal.Rptr. 121, 514 P.2d 1201], convinces us that the order adjudging petitioners in contempt, reciting that each petitioner, on January 14, 1975, in the immediate view and presence of the court, after having been warned by the court to refrain from such conduct, made statements which, in effect, accused the judge of lack of integrity, which conduct tended to and did interrupt the due course of the trial in progress, in contempt of the authority of the court, is amply supported by the evidence

(In re Buckley, supra,

pp. 248-255;

In re Grossman

(1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 624 [101 Cal.Rptr. 176]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subds. 1 and 3; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (b)). The judge had authority to summarily convict and sentence petitioners for the acts of contempt as they occurred

(Codispoti

v.

Pennsylvania

(1974) 418 U.S. 506, 513-514 [41 L.Ed.2d 912, 920, 94 S.Ct. 2687];

Mayberry

v.

Pennsylvania

(1971) 400 U.S. 455, 463 [27 L.Ed.2d 532, 538-539, 91 S.Ct. 499];

Hawk

v.