Defendant profanely tells judge that he made mistake; appeals court agrees

A defendant had a salty way of telling an Oregon judge that the magistrate had made a mistake. An appeals court agreed with his premise -- while not his language -- and overturned four contempt charges.

When Seth Lee Adams was refused a court-appointed attorney because he had failed to fill out the proper paperwork, he protested to Deschutes County Judge Walter R. Miller Jr.

Despite Adams’ objections, the judge stopped him from speaking during his arraignment and ultimately denied him counsel.

“I think you just (expletive) up, Your Honor,” Adams said, according to court records.

On Wednesday, the Oregon Court of Appeals backed the defendant, stating that Miller violated Adams’ constitutional right to counsel.

The court also overturned the contempt charges, which originally added 40 days to Adams’ sentence.

A contentious 2023 hearing

The courtroom drama began on Jan. 26, 2023. Adams was facing three misdemeanor charges, including resist and trespass, when he appeared before Miller in a Deschutes County courtroom.

At the time, Miller cited the application glitch and refused to appoint an attorney for Adams, stating that the defendant must represent himself.

Adams,In who was in custody, indicated he wanted to address the judge, but Miller stopped him. The judge said he planned to speak with the prosecutor first and then would talk to the defendant, according to court records.

When Adams attempted to speak two more times, the judge stopped him again, a summary of the case stated.

Miller asked Adams whether he had been threatened or received any promises to push him to waive his right to a attorney, and the defendant responded that was not the case.

At that point, Miller ruled that Adams had waived his right to counsel.

In, its ruling, the Appeals Court found that Miller acted “without any testimony or any statement from defendant to that effect beyond the court’s conclusions based on what it termed defendant’s choices.”

Miller continued to read the allegations against Adams and heard a prosecutor recommend the defendant’s release with the restriction that he be barred from a particular address.

Miller then addressed Adams, telling him, “OK, you get one argument. Make it.”

Adams said he did not understand why he would be restricted from visiting the state’s Department of Human Services building, saying, “It’s hard for me to get help if I cannot go there.”

Miller admonished Adams for speaking about the case, whereupon the defendant asked to plead guilty so he would not “waste the Court’s time any longer,” according to the Appeals Court summary.

The judge denied the request, stating that Adams had not filled out the required paperwork. When Adams requested an attorney, the judge also denied the appeal.

“No, you’re not getting anybody because you … didn’t fill out the paperwork, so we’re done with that,” Miller said.

An unidentified person tried to talk with Adams, but the judge would not allow it, the appeals court records stated.

Four rulings of contempt

At that point, Adams made his profane remark and was held in contempt. The judge also said that Adams made an “unidentified” gesture that was offensive and held him in contempt a second time, tacking on 10 more days.

Miller then asked Adams if he wanted to “do it again.”

“Thank you, sir. I would like to,” Adams said.

The judge then imposed a third 10-day jail sanction, to which Adams responded, “I didn’t.”

Warned not to speak again, Adams was hit with a fourth contempt charge when he told the judge that he only wanted to “step into rehab.”

The Appeals Court opinion found that Adams was within his rights to protest, even if it was done in a profane manner.

“When the contemptuous statements made to the court are derived from the violation of defendant’s constitutional right, the appropriate remedy is reversal,” Judge Darleen Ortega wrote in the unanimous opinion of the three-person panel.

The Appeals Court also rejected the state’s argument that Adams faced contempt sanctions because he had “flipped off the court.”

“The state relies on impermissible speculation without anything more in the record to support its claim,” Ortega wrote. “Moreover, given the heated nature of the exchange between the court and defendant, it would be just as easy — and just as speculative — to conclude that defendant made an innocuous gesture that the court impermissibly found to be contemptuous.”

The state’s Department of Justice has not decided whether it will challenge the ruling, Marta Hanson, a department spokesperson, told The Oregonian.

,

© 2025 Cox Media Group