ROCKLAND–Attorney Robert Levine has apologized to Justice Francis Marsano for using his name to argue a point of law in the Patrick Reilley case.

Levine was representing Reilley, a Democratic Rockland city councilor, in an improper influence case that ended in a hung jury and mistrial when it was heard before Justice Marsano in Knox County Superior Court last month.

In a written brief bolstering his claim that the law which was used to charge Reilley was unconstitutional, defense attorney Levine created a hypothetical situation with Justice Marsano as its main character. The analogy angered Marsano and caused him to slap Levine with a charge of contempt last week.

“I apologize for any disrespect the court may have felt,” Levine stated in a sworn affidavit filed Friday in response to the contempt charge. “I should not have used Justice Marsano’s name in any hypothetical way.”

Levine’s hypothetical argument posed a situation in which Justice Marsano could theoretically get pulled over for speeding and, during the resulting conversation with the police officer, mention his position on the court. While such a comment would be perfectly innocent, Levine said, by law it could be construed as an improper influence.

Such was the case with councilor Reilley, Levine argued. During his arrest last April for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, Reilley asked Rockland police for a break, mentioned his position on the City Council and reminded officers that the five-member council had the final say on the police department budget.

Knox County District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau, a Republican, viewed Reilly’s alleged statements as an attempt to coerce the arresting officers.

When the case was heard in November, the jury found Reilly guilty of OUI, but the proceedings involving the charge of improper influence ended in a mistrial.

“In no way did I ever intend the language to be disrespectful to the court or Justice Marsano for whom I hold the deepest regard,” Levine stated under oath.

“My intent was simply, by hypothetical analogy, to argue that many individuals including judges, could be confronted with a potentially embarrassing situation … and in an attempt to explain that embarrassment, make statements which someone might consider to be violations of the improper influence statute.”

In addition, Levine’s attorney James Davidson of Rockland filed a motion asking Justice Marsano to reconsider or dismiss his contempt citation against Levine.

While noting that Levine periodically used analogies to define certain legal arguments, Davidson acknowledged that his client “with 20-20 hindsight” understood his “choice of language was not appropriate.”

Davidson stressed, however, that established Maine case law provides many precedents supporting a lawyer’s right to aggressively argue on behalf of his client.

Davidson said the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that “where the alleged contemnor is an attorney representing his client before the c his right to act as a zealous advocate on his client’s behalf.”

Davidson also pointed out that the rules governing contempt generally apply in cases where the alleged contemptible action occurs in the presence of a presiding judge. The Reilly case, he noted, had ended in a mistrial and Levine’s written motion was filed with the court several weeks after the jury had been sent home.

“The statement did not occur in open court,” Davidson stressed.

Davidson cautioned that the rule establishing punishment for contempt should only come into play in situations where “the presiding justice is able to certify he saw or heard the conduct constituting the complaint and that it was committed in the actiual presence of the court.”