A hearing on the contempt charge, to be held before Plough, is scheduled for Friday. Jones' attorneys have asked Plough to remove himself from the case, saying he cannot be impartial.

Plough did not return calls for comment Monday.

Plough's ruling prompted an outcry from defense lawyers, both in Ohio and across the country. Carmen Hernandez, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said in a statement that defense lawyers have an ethical obligation not to start trial if they are not prepared.

"Asking a lawyer to go to trial without preparation is like asking a doctor to perform surgery before diagnosing the patient," she said.

The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has also intervened.

"The defense bar has been outraged," said Friedman. "Anyone who's heard of this matter has been outraged."

This is not the first time that Plough has come under fire. Earlier this year he reportedly had another public defender arrested for refusing to go forward with a trial, though in a May interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer Plough denied that he had the first lawyer arrested.

In May, Portage County Judge Laurie Pittman complained about Plough to the Ohio Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, saying he intimidated defendants who acted as their own lawyers, according to the Plain Dealer. She said Plough was "making a mockery of justice," according to a letter cited by the Plain Dealer.

Pittman and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel declined to comment. The office has not opened an official investigation into Plough.

In 2003, Catalona became director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at Northwestern University in Chicago, asking participants in former research efforts that he oversaw at Washington University if they would consent to transferring their tissue to Northwestern.

Donors of 4,000 tissue samples agreed to the transfer, but Washington University sued to keep the samples there, and won rulings from a U.S. District Court judge and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In papers filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Catalona says he and the research participants could suffer irreparable harm if the appeals court decision is allowed to go into effect.

Washington University could use the tissue in studies the patients would find objectionable, or publish research results in a way that could identify the patients, Catalona's lawyers argued, raising the possibility that participants or their family members might be denied health, life or disability insurance.

In June, Dr. Larry Shapiro, dean of Washington University's School of Medicine, called the appeals court decision a precedent that assures the right of research institutions to use repositories without fear they will be taken or disrupted.

A dozen major research universities, as well as the American Cancer Society and associations of medical colleges and universities, had filed briefs supporting Washington University.

Catalona's lawyers asked Justice Samuel Alito to delay the appeals court decision until the full Supreme Court decides whether it will review the case.

Last week, top administrators ordered them to stop wearing union symbols in public to avoid an appearance of bias.

"While we understand the right to participate in negotiations and union activities, we also require conduct that does not compromise the appearance of neutrality and impartiality to the public and other court users," Court Administrator Denise Gordon said.

On Tuesday, union representatives sent a complaint to the state Public Employment Relations Board, which will evaluate it, said SEIU field representative Kris Organ.