Criminal Contempt (of Court)

In my opinion, the criminal contempt statute is not void for vagueness for three reasons. First, the statute does provide some standards that the court must abide by before it punishes for contempt. Second, the statute, like many statutes, is written in general terms so that those terms can encompass many kinds of behavior. And finally, because punishing contempt is discretionary with the court, an appellate court will review the judge's actions for an abuse of discretion (admittedly a difficult standard to satisfy). The prospective contemnor, therefore, is not left without notice that his or her conduct may violate the law, and if found to violate the law, the contemnor is not without appellate review.

Findlaw said this about the void-for-vagueness doctrine:

Quote:

The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine .-- ''Legislation may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused.'' Acts which are made criminal ''must be defined with appropriate definiteness.'' ''There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vagueness may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the scope of the act . . . or in regard to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt.'' Statutes which lack the requisite definiteness or specificity are commonly held ''void for vagueness.'' (footnotes omitted)

The criminal contempt statute, 18 U.S.C. § 401 provides:

Quote:

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its
authority, and none other, as--
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as
to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order,
rule, decree, or command. (emphasis added)

The statute provides general standards to conform one’s behavior to. Notice, that all of the categories in the criminal contempt statute generally relate to obstruction of justice. Obstruct is a general term. It means to “slow somebody or something down: to cause a serious delay in action or progress.” http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861684357/obstruct.html?partner=orp

So the contemnor-to-be can expect to be punished if he or she “misbehaves” in any of the ways mentioned. In the statute, “misbehave” is also a general term. Misbehave means to “behave in an unacceptable manner” or “to cause problems.” Encarta Dictionary, North America. Even toddlers understand when they have done something “unacceptable” or have “cause[d] problems.” And they understand the consequences of that misbehavior " time out. So criminal contempt is just a “time out” for those who have misbehaved to the point that their misbehavior has seriously delayed the court’s progress.

And if the contemnor believes that the court has abused its discretion in punishing for criminal contempt, the contemnor can ask a higher authority (Mom, perhaps, when Dad says no) to review the court’s actions.

Quote:

A judicial abuse of discretion occurs when the trial judge acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable way that results in unfairly denying a litigant a substantial right or causes an unjust result. http://research.lawyers.com/Standards-of-Review-on-Appeal.html

Quote:

In applying abuse of discretion standard of review, “we will reverse a district court’s determination only if the court exceeded the bounds of the rationally available choices given the facts and the applicable law in the case at hand.” http://federalevidence.com/blog/2009/september/tenth-circuit-examines-%E2%80%9Cabuse-discretion%E2%80%9D-standard-reviewing-exclusion-expert-wi, (quoting Big Sky Network Canada, Ltd. v. Sichuan Provincial Gov’t, 533 F.3d 1183, 1186 (10th Cir. 2008))

Stated in somewhat different terms:

Quote:

“When applying an abuse of discretion standard of review, we necessarily recognize that there may be no single right answer to the question at hand, but a range of possible outcomes sustainable on the law and facts, and we will ‘defer to the district court’s judgment so long as it falls within the realm of these rationally available choices.'" Id. (quoting Shook v. Board of County Commissioners of County of El Paso, 543 F.3d 597, 603-04 (10th Cir. 2008)).

In sum, the person contemplating misbehaving by obstructing justice, should expect to go to time out, and can appeal Dad’s decision to Mom without saying, “That’s not fair. I didn’t know it was wrong.”

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Okay, so I like to dissect and unravel, too. Confused

1 Reply

I'm your average reader. Back later.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Don't worry buco, listening to lawyers talk shop is akin to listening to geeks discuss the intricacies of Dungeons and Dragons. Even though like D&D all the rules discussed are simply made up and are not universally true like mathematics lawyers consider them to be objectively real.

In the US legal system the trump position that can severe all the bullshit stacked high to the sky can be negated by the term "Commerce Clause."

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Your point is very well taken, counsellor.
For the reasons that u indicated, it is constitutionally void for vagueness.

What remains is the unreasoned, arbitrary use of brute force,
possibly depending on the mood of the trial judge at the moment,
or how much he likes the contemner.

It is not necessarily true that all of the reasons for the judgment
find their way into the court 's written decision. Even if u actually read
the entire transcript of the trial, u might not necessarily get all
of the nuances that were competent producing causes of the result.
Did something happen off the record in chambers? or in a sidebar conference?

Did the judge overhear an untoward remark by the contemner
(or about him from someone else) during a recess ?

The difference between right and rong and contemptous
is viewed very differently among different judges and is unpredictable.

David

0 Replies

@Always Eleven to him,

I'm so glad to see you here! Thank you for responding. It's late now, but I can't wait to digest your post with my morning coffee!

0 Replies

@Always Eleven to him,

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Okay, so I like to dissect and unravel, too.

Great!

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

Kuvasz wrote:

Quote:

the rules discussed [by lawyers] are simply made up and are not universally true like mathematics, [but] lawyers consider them to be objectively real.

The laws themselves are real, not made up. But unlike the syllogistic logic of math or science, which involves an absolutely true major premise and an absolutely true minor premise leading to an absolutely true conclusion, formulating the major and minor premises in legal reasoning means that you try to formulate premises that are the most probably true. So legal argument is more properly said to be based on the enthymeme, not the syllogism.

Many legal arguments involve asking the court to say just what the law is. To do that, lawyers comb through the courts' earlier decisions to formulate the rule that is the most probably true one. The courts' earlier decisions may have stated the rule somewhat differently through time. Lawyers must track the changes to the rule to get the one that's the most probably true.

The courts want to "get it right." So the courts strive to find the rule that's the most probably true rule. Then they apply that rule to the new facts they've been presented with, and the rule applied to those facts is the new rule that people must follow.

The intellectually honest judges will do that: they state and apply the rules and let the rules lead them to their results. Only the intellectually honest opinion will gain the confidence of those who must follow it.

The intellectually dishonest judges (and lawyers) will start with the result they want and work their way backwards to find "rules" that will support that result. Some people call that "advocacy."

True advocacy, however, involves looking at the existing rules and applying them to the facts -- all of the facts -- to predict or advocate for the result that logically flows from them. That is, the advocate must honestly assess the law and the facts, and with that assessment in mind, advise the client.

The court rules allow an advocate to argue for a change in the law. The advocate must make that argument in good faith. (Sure that opens the door to intellectual dishonesty, but the good judges see through the bullshit,) If that good-faith argument for change weren't available, we would never have moved past "separate but equal" facilities for persons of different races, genders, etc.

Does this sound Pollyannaish? Yeah, probably. But I prefer knowing that predictable results lead to stability. And I prefer knowing that when the laws need to change, advocates can promote those changes, and the intellectually honest judges will make them.

1 Reply

@Always Eleven to him,

Kuvasz wrote:

Quote:

the rules discussed [by lawyers] are simply made up and are not universally true like mathematics,
[but] lawyers consider them to be objectively real.

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Quote:

The laws themselves are real, not made up. But unlike the syllogistic logic of math or science,
which involves an absolutely true major premise and an absolutely true minor premise
leading to an absolutely true conclusion, formulating the major
and minor premises in legal reasoning means that you try to formulate premises
that are the most probably true.

So legal argument is more properly said to be based on the enthymeme, not the syllogism.[ ?? ]

The results of that are Kafkaesque and void for vagueness.
American citizens have a right not to be plagued by any law
that has not been articulated. Law is supposed to be PREDICTABLE.
No citizen shoud fear being ruled by a law that is incomprehensible.

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Quote:

Many legal arguments involve asking the court to say just what the law is.
To do that, lawyers comb through the courts' earlier decisions to formulate
the rule that is the most probably true one. The courts' earlier decisions
may have stated the rule somewhat differently through time.
Lawyers must track the changes to the rule to get the one that's the most probably true.

The courts want to "get it right." So the courts strive to find the rule that's the most probably true rule.
Then they apply that rule to the new facts they've been presented with,
and the rule applied to those facts is the new rule that people must follow.

The intellectually honest judges will do that: they state and apply the rules
and let the rules lead them to their results.

Only the intellectually honest opinion will gain the confidence of those who must follow it.

From this notion, I must respectfully dissent.
There is wide variation in principle as to how judges
perceive both the law and the facts.

It is not unusual for cases to be overturned on the law
and then reversed again upon further appeal on the law.
To that we add the observed fact (MY observed fact)
that not only litigants, but also professional counsel
are very capable of falling in love with their cases,
and love is blind; objectivity is lost.
To a surprising degree, people will believe
what it is to their advantage to believe.

It is paradigmatic for the parties and their respective counsel
to be present each in the fullness of confidence of prevailing
on both fact and law, and therefore, refusing to settle.

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Quote:

The intellectually dishonest judges (and lawyers) will start
with the result they want and work their way backwards to
find "rules" that will support that result. Some people call that "advocacy."

True advocacy, however, involves looking at the existing rules
and applying them to the facts -- all of the facts -- to predict or
advocate for the result that logically flows from them.
That is, the advocate must honestly assess the law and the facts,
and with that assessment in mind, advise the client.

In private, yes.

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Quote:

The court rules allow an advocate to argue for a change in the law.
The advocate must make that argument in good faith.
(Sure that opens the door to intellectual dishonesty, but the good
judges see through the bullshit,) If that good-faith argument
for change weren't available, we would never have moved past
"separate but equal" facilities for persons of different races, genders, etc.

Does this sound Pollyannaish? Yeah, probably.

It sounds like judicial legislation.
Incidentally, u refer to "the good judges";
how do u handle it if u have bad judges?

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Quote:

But I prefer knowing that predictable results lead to stability.

Most respectfully, that disproves the wisdom
of your rejection of law resting upon clearly defined syllogism. (see below)

Quoth 11:

Quote:

But unlike the syllogistic logic of math or science,
which involves an absolutely true major premise and an absolutely
true minor premise leading to an absolutely true conclusion,
formulating the major and minor premises in legal reasoning
means that you try to formulate premises that are the most
probably true.

So legal argument is more properly said to be based on the enthymeme, not the syllogism.[ALL EMPHASIS ADDED BY DAVID]

Always Eleven to him wrote:

Quote:

And I prefer knowing that when the laws need to change,
advocates can promote those changes, and the intellectually honest judges will make them.

The proper judicial function is to dispassionately apply pre-existing law, unless
he finds it in conflict with a higher law, e.g. a constitution.
If an intellectually honest judge wishes to change the law
then he shoud resign from office and run for election to the legislature.

David

0 Replies

@Always Eleven to him,

Always Eleven to him wrote:

In my opinion, the criminal contempt statute is not void for vagueness for three reasons. First, the statute does provide some standards that the court must abide by before it punishes for contempt. Second, the statute, like many statutes, is written in general terms so that those terms can encompass many kinds of behavior. And finally, because punishing contempt is discretionary with the court, an appellate court will review the judge's actions for an abuse of discretion (admittedly a difficult standard to satisfy). The prospective contemnor, therefore, is not left without notice that his or her conduct may violate the law, and if found to violate the law, the contemnor is not without appellate review.

Findlaw said this about the void-for-vagueness doctrine:

Quote:
The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine .-- ''Legislation may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused.'' Acts which are made criminal ''must be defined with appropriate definiteness.'' ''There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vagueness may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the scope of the act . . . or in regard to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt.'' Statutes which lack the requisite definiteness or specificity are commonly held ''void for vagueness.'' (footnotes omitted)

Focusing on the due process requirement of notice, defendants must have notice of the maximum penalty they face if they violate the criminal statute.

Quote:

The criminal contempt statute, 18 U.S.C. § 401 provides:

Quote:
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its
authority, and none other, as--
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as
to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order,
rule, decree, or command. (emphasis added)

(snip)

I do not dispute your analysis of the essential "forbidden conduct" elements of the offense. However, the criminal statute, on its face, lacks an essential grading element. The statute, on its face, fails to provide explicit notice of the severity of the penalty that the federal government may impose if the defendant is found guilty of the offense. The federal criminal code contains a default statute that provides, in the absence of a grading element in the provision defining the offense, the offense is a class A felony. Nevertheless, the 11th Circuit held that the default statute did not apply because the offense of criminal contempt embraced a wide range of forbidden conduct from trivial to severe. Congress could not have intended that trivial misbehavior be classified as a class A felony.

The absence of a grading provision, and the 11th Circuit's ruling that the default grading provision does not apply, means that the offender has no notice whatsoever of the maximum penalty he is facing when charged with the offense of criminal contempt. Our courts cannot carve out an exception to the notice provision of the 6th Amendment by designating the offense of criminal contempt as sui generis. The constitution requires that "in all criminal prosecutions [and that includes the criminal prosecution of an offense which the court considers to be unique], the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

"Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that the State may impose." BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574 (1996).

Quote:

Quote:
In applying abuse of discretion standard of review, “we will reverse a district court’s determination only if the court exceeded the bounds of the rationally available choices given the facts and the applicable law in the case at hand.” http://federalevidence.com/blog/2009/september/tenth-circuit-examines-%E2%80%9Cabuse-discretion%E2%80%9D-standard-reviewing-exclusion-expert-wi, (quoting Big Sky Network Canada, Ltd. v. Sichuan Provincial Gov’t, 533 F.3d 1183, 1186 (10th Cir. 2008))

Stated in somewhat different terms:

Quote:
“When applying an abuse of discretion standard of review, we necessarily recognize that there may be no single right answer to the question at hand, but a range of possible outcomes sustainable on the law and facts, and we will ‘defer to the district court’s judgment so long as it falls within the realm of these rationally available choices.'" Id. (quoting Shook v. Board of County Commissioners of County of El Paso, 543 F.3d 597, 603-04 (10th Cir. 2008)).

In sum, the person contemplating misbehaving by obstructing justice, should expect to go to time out, and can appeal Dad’s decision to Mom without saying, “That’s not fair. I didn’t know it was wrong.”

Judges are accorded a wide range of discretion in sentencing determinations and sentences are generally upheld on appeal so long as they do not exceed the maximum penalty provided by law. Because there is no statutory maximum penalty specified for the offense of criminal contempt, we have no ascertainable standards or ranges or realms of choices to guide a court's discretion. I believe the absence of a grading provision makes the criminal contempt statute void for vagueness in violation of due process.

0 Replies

Why is it necessary to have a statute at all? Contempt is an offense against the court, not against the state, and the court has an inherent authority to punish contempt that is not founded on statute.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Why is it necessary to have a statute at all? Contempt is an offense against the court, not against the state, and the court has an inherent authority to punish contempt that is not founded on statute.

What is the maximum penalty (death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for a term of years, fine, etc.) that a court may impose upon an offender via its inherent authority? Even the court's inherent authority to punish an offender is subject to the constitutional requirement of notice of both the conduct constituting the offense and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed.

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Why is it necessary to have a statute at all? Contempt is an offense against the court, not against the state, and the court has an inherent authority to punish contempt that is not founded on statute.

What is the maximum penalty (death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for a term of years, fine, etc.) that a court may impose upon an offender via its inherent authority? Even the court's inherent authority to punish an offender is subject to the constitutional requirement of notice of both the conduct constituting the offense and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed.

That 's right. Surely the "inherent authority" is subject to
basic constitutional considerations, in light of the fact that
the existence of the court itself depends on the Constitution.

David

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Why is it necessary to have a statute at all? Contempt is an offense against the court, not against the state,
and the court has an inherent authority to punish contempt that is not founded on statute.

How valid is it to draw a distinction between the state and one of its courts ?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Why is it necessary to have a statute at all? Contempt is an offense against the court, not against the state, and the court has an inherent authority to punish contempt that is not founded on statute.

What is the maximum penalty (death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for a term of years, fine, etc.) that a court may impose upon an offender via its inherent authority? Even the court's inherent authority to punish an offender is subject to the constitutional requirement of notice of both the conduct constituting the offense and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed.

There is also the matter of DEFINING
the prohibited conduct.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

What is the maximum penalty (death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for a term of years, fine, etc.) that a court may impose upon an offender via its inherent authority?

In Illinois, it's one year for indirect contempt -- which is in line with the 9th Circuit's decision that contempt is akin to a class A misdemeanor. For direct contempt, however, the sentence can be open-ended, so long as it is in the power of the contemnor to end the contempt by conforming to the court's order (i.e. the contemnor always has "the keys to his cell").

Debra Law wrote:

Even the court's inherent authority to punish an offender is subject to the constitutional requirement of notice of both the conduct constituting the offense and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed.

That's usually not a problem.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
What is the maximum penalty (death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment for a term of years, fine, etc.) that a court may impose upon an offender via its inherent authority?

In Illinois, it's one year for indirect contempt -- which is in line with the 9th Circuit's decision that contempt is akin to a class A misdemeanor. For direct contempt, however, the sentence can be open-ended, so long as it is in the power of the contemnor to end the contempt by conforming to the court's order (i.e. the contemnor always has "the keys to his cell").

When the contemnor has the keys to his cell in his own pocket, that's CIVIL contempt. Generally, it has been proven that the contemnor has the ability to comply with a court order but simply refuses to do so. A civil contempt order is remedial, not punitive.

The rules that apply in CIVIL contempt cases do not apply to CRIMINAL contempt cases because the purpose is to PUNISH the offender.

joefromchicago wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
Even the court's inherent authority to punish an offender is subject to the constitutional requirement of notice of both the conduct constituting the offense and the severity of the penalty that may be imposed.

That's usually not a problem.

Not a problem in civil contempt cases, but an enormous problem in criminal contempt cases. Criminal defendants are constitutionally entitled to know the maximum penalty for the offense charged.

0 Replies

Criminal Contempt (of Court)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know