## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1383 F EDERAL T RADE C OM MI S S I ON, P laint if f , v. K EV I N T RUDE AU, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:03- cv-03904

— Robert W . G ettleman, Judg e.

A RG UE D A PRI L 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 20, 2010

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Ke v i n T r u d e a u wa s b e f o r e us l as t y ea r, o n a ppea lfr o m a di st r i ctj udg e’ s o r derfi ndi ng hi m i n c o nt empt o fc o ur t, fi ni nghi m ne ar l y $ 40 mil l i o n, an d barr i ng hi m fro m appearing i n any i nfo m er ci als for th re e y ea r s . W e fo u n d th at th e d ist ric t jud ge p ro p er ly hel d him i n ci vi lco ntem p t (h e had vi ol ate d the t er m s o f a co ns ent or derb ar r i nghi m fr o m mis r epr es en ting the c onte nt o fany ofhi s bo oks o n T V ) bu t r em anded the c a s e s o tha tthe p e na l t y h e i nc ur r e d fo r h i s c o nt e mpt2 N o. 10

- 1383

c on for m ed w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts of civ il con te m p t. F TC v. Trudeau , 5 79 F
. 3d 75 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. W e ex pr es se d no opi ni on o n w hat hi s penal ty should be but ent rust ed i t t o the s ound j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. Trudeau i s bef or e us aga i n. Thi s t i m e he’ s be en se nt en ce d t o thi r tyda y s i n j ai la fte r he was f o und i n di r ec t cr i m i na lc o nt empt o fc o ur t f o r hi s co nduc t dur i ng th e ci vi lc ont em pt pr o ce eding s. ( W e di sc us se d the di ffer en ce be twe en ci vi l an d cr i m i na l co nt empt i n our p rior op in ion in t h is c as e, i d. at76 9. ) Tru d ea u , i t s eem s, exhor ted hi s devo ted r ad io audience to se nd e- m ai l s o n hi s be ha l fdi r ec tly t o the c o ur t e- m ai la d dr es s o fthe di st r i ctj udg e pr es i di ngo ve r hi s ca se ; he po st ed th e ra dio br oadcasto n hi s web si te, a n d fol l owed i t up w i th ane - m ai lbl as t a sk i nghi s e - m ai ll i stto se nd e- m ai l s to the j ud ge. T he district j ud ge ha d not aske d f or any letters an d the j ud ge had not ( he tho ught) m ade hi s e - m ail ad d ress p ub li cly avail able (i t turn s out N orth w estern U ni ver si ty L aw S choolhad l i ste d i t o n i ts w eb s i te; the j ud ge i s a n adj unct pro fess orther e)
. H e was, ther ef or e, surpri sed to see e-m ailaftere- m ai lco m e pour i ng i nto h is i n box

. H e w as also nervou s. M ost of the e-m ail s w ere p olit e an d en th u sia st ic (“ If lovin g t h e v alu es K ev in Trudeau cre ate s forso ciet y is wrong, Idon’ t wanna be ri gh t!” ) , but som e had thr eat eni ng o ver tone s ( “Leave k e v i n a n d h i s r i g htto f r e e s p a c h a l o n e . Iw i s h c a r ma on your soul thi s ver y m om ent. m ay god touch y ou today. ” [ si c thr ou ghout] and “M or e peo ple than you k no w ar e k eepi nga c l o se e y e o n thi s ca se , no t j us t th e spe ci ali nt er es ts who wi l lb en efi t fr o m K ev i n’ s s i l en ce , b ut eve ry - day r egul arpeopl e. W e know thati fhe c an be per se cut ed, s o c anwe. W e ar e awake to the ty r annyN o. 10

- 1383 3

W e tha nk G ary Fe iner m an, of Sid ley A u sti n , for his 1 ex ce p tio n a l se rv ic e i n th is r o le

. slow ly an d qu ietl y cree p in g i nt o our society. W e are w a t c h i n g.” ). Th e jud ge ale rt ed th e m ar sh al t o th e e -m ails c o mi ngt o h i s a c c o un t, a nd the ma r s ha l p er f o r med a thr e a t a s s e s s men t t o de t e r mi ne whe the r the j udge w as i n d a n g e r . T h e j u d g e r e c e i v e d o v e r 3 0 0 e - ma i l s wi th i n a span of36 o r so hours. Once the j ud ge be gan to und er sta nd thatal lthes e e m ai l s w er e ar ri vi ng at Trudeau’s behest, he sum m oned Trudeau’s law ye r ( and the l aw yerf orthe FTC) into cour t the next m or ni ng witho ut expl ai ni ng wh y. A t that m or ni ng’ s s ess i on, the j ud ge noti fi ed Trudeau’s co u nsel tha tT r ud e a u c o ul d b e f aci ng a c r i mi na lc o nt e mpt sa nc tio n a nd o r der ed Tr ude au t o a ppea r tha t afte r no o n. H e a l so i nstr ucted Trudeau’s co uns el to have Trudeau m ake the e- m ai l s s top. B efo re h e s how ed up la terthat day, Trudeau se nt an e- m ai l to hi s l i ste ners ask i ng them to c ea se e-m ailin g t h e jud ge . Still, th e jud ge su m m ar ily fou n d T ru d ea u gu ilty of cr im in a l c o n te m p t a n d , a w eek later , i m p osed the 30 -da y sen ten ce. On Tru d eau ’s m o ti o n we st ay ed th e ex ec ut i o n of the s en te nc e an d ex pedi te d hi s appe al

. The F TC o ffi cial l y t o o kno posi ti on on the c ri m i nalco ntem pt j ud gm ent, and defer re d t o the Uni t e d S t a t e s At t o r ne y, wh o a l s o di d n o tt a ke a po si ti o n. W e, the r efor e, a ppo i nt ed ana m i cus t o a r g ue on be ha l fo fthe c o nt e mptj ud g men t
. We no w c o ns i der 1 w hether Trudeau’s sum m ar y pu ni shm ent for di re ct cr i m i na lc o nt empt w as a pr o pere xe r ci se o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a uthor i ty.4 N o. 10

- 1383 Trudeau ar gues that hi s co nvict ion i s defecti ve on both substa nti ve and proceduralgr ounds, and he does so in t h at ord er . Su b st an tiv ely , he co n te n d s t h ath is conduct w as not conte m ptuous, notpunishabl e under the c ri m i nalco ntem pt sta tute, 18 U
. S. C. § 4 01, a nd that i t wa s p r o t ecte d und erthe Fi rs t Am endm ent. Pro cedural l y, he d isp u tes the j ud ge’ s use o fa sum m ar y pr oce du re to con vi cthi m o fc o nt empt. He a l so que st i o ns the re as on ab len es s o fh is s en te n c e in th e e ve n t t h at h is chal l enges to the convi cti on f ai l

. W e th in k i t m ake s the m ostse nse t o add re ss the pr oce du ra l a sp ects o f the c o nt empt c o nv i ct i o n fi r stb ec au se b y the v ery na ture o fa s um m ar y pr o ce edinga t th e di st r i ctc o ur t, the record before u s i s rather sp arse. A m ore com p lete record w oul d be m or e a pp ro p riate f orthe fullco nsi derat i on o f his s ubs ta nt i ve a r g um en ts
. As y o u wi l ls ee , Tr ude au ’s substa nti ve concerns wil l, f or the m ostpart, r equi re further d ev elo p m en t. F e d e r a l law , 18 U
. S. C
. § 401, con fers up on a cou rt the a uthor i ty to pu ni sh by i m pri sonm ent “ m i sbehav i oro f any perso n i n i ts prese nce o r so nearther eto as to obs tr uct the adm i ni str ati on of j u sti ce, ” id. § 40 1( 1) , a nd “dis obe die nce o r re si sta nce t o i ts l aw ful w ri t, pro cess , or der, rule , d ecr ee, or com m and,” i d. § 401( 3)
. Cond uct that viol ates § 40 1 is a crim e, an d gene rall y con tem nors ar e c on vic te d t h ro u gh n or m al c rim in al p ro c es s. SeeInt’l U nion, U nite d M ineWorkers of Am er ica v. B agw el l , 51 2 U
. S. 821, 826 (1994 ). Fed eral Ru le ofCrim inal P r o c ed ure 42(a) outlines th e ordi n a r y proc ed ure s nec essary for a fi nd i ng of cri m i nal conte m pt. N one of thos e proceduresN o. 10

- 1383 5

w er e fol l owed i n thi s ca se, because the j ud ge proce eded un d er Ru le 4 2(b), w hich all ow s for th e sum m ary puni sh m en t o f d ir ec t cr i m i na lc o nt empt. ( I fy o u r ea d the ol der c ase s, yo u’l lnot i ce tha t in the past 4 2( a) describ ed sum m ar y c onte m pt proc edures and 42( b) d escribed the sta nd ard proc ess. T he se p rovisi ons w ere re w rit te n an d re -or d e r e d in 20 02
. See Fed. R. Cri m . P. 42 ad vis or y c om m i tt ee n ot es to th e 2 00 2 a m en d m en ts ; In re C o ntem pt O rder, 441 F.3d 126 6, 1267n.2 ( 10th Cir. 2006)). A find in g of d ire c t co n te m p t is ap p ro p ria te on ly if th e cr i m i na lc o nt empt o cc ur r ed i n the pr es ence o fthe j udge and “ th e j udg e sa w orhe ar d the c o nt emptuo us c o nd uc ta nd s o c e r t i fi e s . ” F e d. R
. Cr i m. P
. 4 2 ( b )
. Co nt e mpt i n the p re se nc e o fthe c o ur t “mustb e puni sh ed o n the spot to m ai ntai n the cour t’ s a uthor i ty. ” M ann v. He ndr i an , 871 F.2d 51, 52 (7th C ir. 1989). T he use o f t h e sum m ary conte m pt pow eri s pro per onl y for“char ges o fm i sco nd uct, i n open co urt, i n the prese nce ofthe j ud ge, wh i ch disturbs the c ourt ’ s business, wh er e a l lo fthe ess enti al el ement s o fthe mis co nduc t ar e under th e ey e o fthe cou rt, are a c t ua ll y observe d by the cou rt, and w he re i m m ed iate p un ishm en t is essent i al t o pr ev en t ‘dem or aliz at ion of th e c ou rt ’s a u th or ity ’ be for e t h e p u b lic.” Pounde rs v. Wat s on , 5 2 1 U. S
. 9 8 2 , 9 8 8 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( p e r c ur i a m) ( quoti ng In re O liv er, 333 U
. S. 257, 275 (1948 ))
. The fund am ental pri nci ple i n conte m pt case s i s th at th e co ur t m us t ex er ci se the l eastpo ss ibl e po wert o the en d p ro p os ed

. U ni t e d St at e s v. M os ch i ano , 69 5 F
. 2d 236, 25 1 ( 7th C i r. 19 82) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d St at e s v. Wi l s on , 42 1 U.S
. 30 9, 31 9 (1 97 5)); s e e al s o Ande rs on v . Dunn , 19 U
. S. 20 4, 23 16 N o. 10

- 1383 ( 18 21 )
. As a ppl i ed to the di r ec t co nt empt c o nt ex t, the least p ossible p ow er p rinciple instru cts that s u m m ary dispos i ti on i s pro per onl y w hen “the expres s r equi re m ents o fthe r ul e ar e m eta nd whe n the r e i s a ‘ co m pel l i ng re as on for a n im m ed iat e re m ed y’ o r tim e is of th e e ss en c e.” M os ch iano , 695 F.2d at25 1; see In re Ja free, 74 1 F
. 2d 133, 13 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 4) ( r equi r i ngtha t th er e be b o tha com pel l i ng r eas on f oran i m m edi ate r em edy andt i me i s o fthe e ss en ce )
. I fthe l i te r alreq uirem en ts o fthe sum m ar y di sposi ti on r ule a re m et, we re vi ew the dist ri ct j udg e’ s dec i si o n t o i m po se it for a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. M os ch i ano , 695 F.2d at2 5 1

- 5 2. If th er e is an “e x p licit deter m i nati on that there was a c om pel l i n g n eed f oran i m m edi ate rem edy, we shal lgi ve appropri ate defer ence to that fi nd i ng. ” Id. at 25 2. But, “in l i g ht o f the serio us potenti alf orabuse o fthe sum m ar y c onte m pt pow er . . . w e e m phasi ze the s peci alduty o fan a pp el l ate c ourtto gi ve car eful a n d m eti cul ous c onsi derat i on t o the t ri al c ou rt ’s d ec isio n t h at su m m ar y d isp os itio n is ap p ro p ria te .” Id. “The S up rem e Cour t has sa i d that [ sum m ar y c onte m pt] i s r e s e r v e d fo r ‘ e xc e pt i o na l c i r c ums t a nc e s ’ ” wh i c h i nc l ud e “act s th reate ni ng the j ud ge ordi sr up ti ng a hear i ng o r obs tr ucti ng co urt proce edi ngs. ” Id. at 250 ( ci ti ng H arris v. U nited Sta tes , 3 8 2 U. S
. 1 6 2 , 1 6 4

- 6 5 ( 1 9 6 5 ) )
. Ab s e nttho se circum stan ces, the j ud ge sh ou ld p roceed u nd er Ru le 42a’s p r o c e d u re s. Se ei d. “ [ T ] h e p o we r o fs u mma r y c o n t e mpt i s ca pabl e o fgr ave abuse, and i s pro perl y r ega rded by the cour ts w i th extr em e d i sf avo r. ” Id. (citations om itted ). “A cc o r di ng l y, the S upr eme Co ur t ha s i ndi ca te d tha t th eN o. 10

- 1383 7 p ow er of su m m ar y con te m p t is lim ite d to c as e s in whi chi m m edi at e puni sh m en t i s es se nt i alt o pr ev en t dem or al i zati on o fthe cour t’ s a uthor i ty bef or e the publ i c, an d that before the d rastic p roced ure s o f t he sum m ary co nt empt po wermay be i nv o k ed to r epl ac e th e p rotection s of o r d inary con stitut ional proce d ure s the re m ust be an a ctualo bstr uction ofj usti ce. ” Id. at 250- 51 (citations an d i nt erna l qu otations om itted ). The j ud ge f ound the “pr ese nce” c ondition sa ti sfi ed in this case b ecau se he c ou ld read th e e -m ail s o n th e cou rt’s co m put er s ( i nc l udi ngthe c o m put eri n th e co ur tr o o m ) a nd hi s PDA w hi ch h e ca rr i ed w i th hi m so thathe was “a l w ays inco m m u n ic a t i o n ” w ith th e c ou rt . N eit h er find in g is s u ffi c i e n tt o s a t i s fy R u l e 4 2 ’ s “ p r e s e n c e ” r e q u i r e me n t
. We resist th e d istri ct cou rt’s sugge stion th at th e term “pr es en ce ” shoul d b e ex pan ded to r ea chb ey o nd the j ud ge’s actu al, ph ysicalpr es en ce . W hile the Sup rem e C ou rt ha s he l d tha t “the co ur t, atl ea stw he n in s es si o n, i s pr es en t i n eve ryp ar t ofthe pla ce s et apartf ori ts own use, and f or th e us e o fi ts o ffi ce r s, j ur ors, a nd wi tn es se s; a nd m i sb eh av i o r a ny wher e i n su chpl ac e i s m i sb eh av i o r i n the prese nce o fthe cour t, ” E x parteSavin , 13 1 U.S
. 26 7, 27 7 ( 18 89 ) ( fi ndi ng th at wi tn es s- ta m per i ng th at o cc ur r ed i n the j ury room and cou rt hallw ay occu rred i n th e cou rt’s prese nce) , the l anguage o f Rule 42(b) speci fi cal l y r equi re s th at th e j u d ge “s aw or h ea rd th e c on te m p tu ou s c on d u c t,” see Co o k e v. U nited Sta tes , 26 7 U .S. 5 17, 53 5- 36 ( 1925 ) ( di st i ng ui sh i ngthe c o nt empt a t i ss ue i n Savin with co nt empt “ unde r the e y e o r wi th in t he v i ew o fthe c ou rt ”). T h is re q u ire m en t in d ica t e s t h at th e a c t it se lf8 N o. 10

- 1383

m ust be co m m i tte d i n the jud ge’s pre sence; thati ts effe c ts are fel t bythe dist ri ct j ud ge i s insuffi ci ent t o j us ti fy s um m ar y di spo si ti o n. P o un ders , 52 1 U.S
. at98 8 ( re cogni zi ng tha t s um m ar y d i sposi ti on is onlyappropr i ate w he re “a l lo fthe ess enti alel em ents ofthe m i sco nd uct ar e u n der the ey e o fthe cour t [ and] a re actual l y obser ved b y t h e c ou rt ”); Cooke, 2 67U.S. a t 5 34
. Expa ns i o n o fthe term to encom p ass th e “virtua l p r esen ce” of the cou rt al so runs a f oulo fthe l i m i ti ng princi ple s ind i cate d by th e R u l e ’ s l a n g u a g e a nd the c o n t e mptj u r i s p r u d e n c e we d isc u s s e d ab ov e. Se eM os ch i ano , 695 F.2d at25 0; cf. U nited St at e s v. Thom ps on , 5 99 F. 3d 595, 60 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( vacat i ng the r evo cati on ofdefendant’s superv i sed r el eas e b ec au se d efe n d an t’s rev oc at ion w as co n d u c te d via vid eo c on fer en c e); U nite d State s v. Law re nce, 24 8 F
. 3d 300, 30 4 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( va ca ti ngs en te nc e wher e defen dan t appe ar ed vi a vi deo co nfer en ce a t se nt en cinghe ar ing an d not ing tha t “p resen ce m ean s p hy sical p r esen ce”). F ur the r mor e , R ule 42 ( b ) s pe c i fi c a l l y l i mi t s the c o nt e mpt n ec es sa ry for s u m m ar y d i s p o sit ion to co n d u c t in the pr ese nce o fthe j ud ge, wh i l e § 401 ( 1) punishes bo th conduct i n the prese nce o fthe cour t a nd conduct “so near th er et o a s t o ob st ru c t t h e a d m in ist ra tio n of j u st ice .” Rule 42(b) ’ s o m i ssi on o fthi s l att ercat ego ry of conduct con vince s us that w e shou ld con stru e the term “p resen ce” n arrow ly in the co n t ex t of su m m ary d isp os itio n . Se eCooke, 2 6 7U. S
. a t5 3 6 ( “ W he n the c o nt e mpt i s n ot in o pen cour t, however, ther e i s no such r i ght o r r ea so n in di spe ns i ngwi ththe nec es si tyo fc ha r g es a nd the o pp or tuni ty ofthe accused t o pr es en t hi s defense by w itn es se s a n d arg u m en t.” ).N o. 10

- 1383 9 The narr ow constr ucti on m ake s s ense i n thi s ca se. D es p ite h is s ta te m en t t h at h e re lied on n o e x tr i n s ic evi dence to find Trudeau i n conte m pt, the j ud ge had to do r es ea r ch i n o r der to fi g ur e o ut why he w as ge tt i ng Trudeau’s e- m ai l s. H e ( or hi s sta ff ) w ent o n Trudeau’s web si te, ha d hi s co ur t r epo r te r t r an sc r ibe the b r o adc as t, a nd enter ed the e- m ails, web si te posting, and br oadcast i nt o the r ec o r d. ( F ur th er m o r e, a t th e m o m en t he f o und T rud eau i n con tem p t, th e j ud ge d id n ot k n ow w he re Trudeau had got ten hi s e - m ai laddres s, an d i m pli ed that i t ha d b ee n obt aine d i m pr o per l y : “ Ido n’ t k no w ho w he w oul d have g ott en m y e - m ai laddress

. I’m c uri ous, at l eas t, and conce rned ab out how thathappened. I t i s no t a m at te r o f publ i c r ec o r d. ” A wee k l at er, when se nt en cing Trudeau, the j ud ge deter m i n ed t hat the e- m ai laddress had actual l y b een r eve al ed thr ough a si m ple i nter net se ar ch

. ) Thi s l ev elo ff ac t- fi ndi ngr en der s su m m ary d isposition im p rop er: the ju stifi cation f or sum m ary pr o ce ss i s thatb ec au se he wi tn es se d the c o nt emptuo us conduct, the j ud ge knows al l he needs to know in order to p u n i sh the defendant. Even i fthe externalf acts d et er m i ned by the co urt ar e unconte ste d, w e a re l oath to endors e a s yst em wh er e the o nl y way a defe nd ant ca n av oid su m m ar y p ro c es s i s b y d en yin g t h es e fa c ts . Th is w oul d cre ate a re alFi fth A m endm en t c oncern by es sentiall y f o r cingthe de fen dan t to a dm i t o r de ny i ncri m i nating be havi orbefor e dete rm i n ing the pro cess t o wh i c h he i s e nt i t l e d. Th e j udg e p utT r ud e a u i n s o methingo fa b i nd , f o r i ns ta nc e, whenhe s ai d , “ Letme j us t m ak e so m ethi ng very clear. Im ean, Iw an t to m ake s u r e that i t’s10 N o. 10

- 1383 cl ear . M r. Trudeau co ncedes that he did, i n f act, cause th es e e- m ai l s to b e se nt
. ” The c o nt ex t o fthe s tatem en t m ake s cl earthatthe j ud ge w as e x pecti ng Trudeau to c on c ed e h is gu ilt at th is p oin t (h i s l a w ye r d ip lom at ica lly refrai ne d from doin g so). Bu t, u n d e r the su m m ary co nt empt pr o ce dur e, the re sho ul d b e no ne ed to putthe questi on t o the defendant; the j ud ge m ust hav e s een orhear d the co ntem ptuous co nd uct. H er e, r el evantf ac ts ha d t o b e det er m i ne d b efo r e Tr ude au c o ul d b e f o und i n c o nt empt b ec au se the c o nduc t o cc ur r ed o ut si de th e j ud ge’ s pre sence; i t m ake s no di ffer ence i fthe j ud ge w as abso l utely convi nced that he had uncover ed conte m ptuous co nd uct o utsi de the cour tr oo m thr ough h is ow n inv es tig at ion
. Cooke, 26 7 U .S. a t 5 38 ( “I n case s l i k e thi s , wh e r e the i nt e nt i o n wi th whi c h a c t s o fc o nt e mpt h av e b ee n co m m itt ed m u st n ec es sa rily a n d p ro p er ly ha ve a n i m po r ta ntb ea r i ngo n the de g r ee o fg ui l t an d the pen al tywhi chs ho ul d b e i m po se d, the c o ur t cann ot e xcl ud e evi dence i n m i ti gat i on. ”)
. S um m ar y di sposi ti on was a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Am i cus p ress es the ur g en cyo fthe s i tu at i o n the d istri ct j ud ge faced , w hich he says j us tified su m m ary pu ni shm ent. W e no te that thi s a rgum ent a ssum es that th e c o n t e mpto c c u r r e d i n the j u d g e ’ s p r e s e n c e , wh i c h we rej e c t
. Bu tu nd e r l y i ngthe a r g ume nti s the i de a tha t i ncre ase d urgencyat tenu ates the nece ssi ty ofactual p re se n c e. T h is is w or th ad d re ss in g. See I n re Troutt, 46 0 F
. 3 d 8 8 7, 8 9 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( de t e r mi ningwh e ther co nt empt wa s i n the pr es en ce o fthe c o ur t bye xa m i ni ng whethe r t i m e was o fthe es sen ce , a t r i alwas b eingN o. 10

- 1383 11 disrup ted bythe conduct, a nd wh etherany i m m edi ate fun ction of the cou rt w as th reaten ed by the co n d uc t). A m i cus em phasi zes t hat the j ud ge w as com pel l ed to as k th e m ar s h a lt o u n d e r t a k e a th r e a ta s s e s s me n t
. As we m enti oned, som e of the e- m ai l s coul d e asi l y be con st rued as ra i sing concerns abo ut a thre at to the j ud ge ( anothe r ex ampl e: “ Yo u ha ve s o l d y o urso ul s f o r po wera nd wea l th, an d e te r na ls pi r i tu alde st r uct i on awai ts tho se who co nde m n the righteo us . M ayGo d b e m er ci fult o y o u, and m ay H e bl ess Kevi n Trudeau al w ays . ”)
. But urg ency, w h ile re q u ire d to inv ok e s u m m ar y c on te m p t p ow er , i s not suffi ci ent t o jus tify i ts exer ci se. There m ust be a nexus bet w een the urg ency ofthe si tu ati on a nd the need for im m ed iat e p u n ish m en t. T h is re q u ire d co n n ec tio n is w h y, for in st an c e, re fu sin g t o te st ify b efo re a g ra n d j u ry is n otsu bj ec t t o s u m m ar y c on te m p t p ro c ed u re s, Harris , 382 U
. S. a t 1 64, but re fusi ng to te sti fy duri ng a tr i ali s, Wi l s on , 4 21 U .S. a t 3 18 ; s e e al s o In r eGr and Jury Pr oc e e di ngs , 875 F. 2d 927, 93 3 (1s t Cir
. 19 89) ( “The r ati onal e for cur ta i l i ngthe us ua lc r i m i na lpr o ce dur es i n the e ve nt ofi n-cou rt co ntem pt i s that a co urt m ust be abl e t o m ai ntai n or der to assur e the i ntegr i ty ofco urt proce edi ngs. The s ame de g r ee ofurg en cyi s no t i nhe r en t i n pun i sh m en t o fc o nt empts c o m m i tt ed o ut si de th e pr es en ce o fthe co ur t, s i nc e o ut
- o f

- co ur t co nt empts do no t di sr up t th e j udg e’ s ha ndl i ngo f on goi ngpr o ce eding s o ve r whi chhe i s pr es i di ng . ”)
. F o r e xa m pl e, i n wha t we co ul d v i ew a s th e typi caldi re ct c onte m pt cas e
— an o bstr epero us l i ti ga nt at tr i alw ho w i l ln ot heed the cour t’ s instr ucti ons and bri ngs th e t ria l to a h alt

— the ne ed forthe l i ti gant’ s co m pli ance i n o r dert o c ont i nue the pr o ce eding s i s ur g en t; b y the12 N o. 10

- 1383

sa m e to k en, the r e i s anur g en t ne ed to puni shthe l i tigant q u ick ly so th e p ro c ee d in gs m ay res u m e. Bu t in thi s case, the need to pres er ve the c ourt ’ s s ecuri ty and the nee d to pu ni sh Trudeau s u m m ari l y were not cl ose l y l i nked. A fi nd i ng, byi tse l f, that the cour t’ s s ecuri ty proce du res w er e i m pli cate d does no t a m ount t o a fi nd i ng tha t there was a “co m pel l i ng r eas on” to i m m edi ate l y punis h Trudeau. The urg en c y r equi re d f orsum m ar y di sposi ti on i s n ot m erel y that the co nd uct i ts el fc r ea te d a n e m er g en cyb uttha t th e ne ed to puni shthe c on d u c t w as so u rg en t th at p ro c ed u ra l sa feg u ar d s s h ou ld be di sr eg ar d ed

. The need f orthe cour t t o conduct i ts d ut ies i s the fun d am en tal rati ona le und erlyi ng the cou rt’s su m m ar y c on te m p t p ow er s. Wi l s on , 4 21 U. S
. a t 31 6 ( no ting th atwhenc o nduc t “di srupts a nd fr us tr at es a n o ng o i ng proce edi ng . . . sum m ar y c onte m pt m ust be ava i l abl e t o vindi cate th e au th o r i tyo fthe c o ur t” a nd r emedy the sit u at ion .). T h e recor d i n thi s ca se i s devo i d ofany sugge sti on that Trudeau’s sum m ar y punis hm en t w as necess ar y t o re sto re the cour t’ s abi l i ty to resu m e i ts du ti es. “N o tr i al was b eingdi srupt ed bya f ai l ur e to c o m pl y wi tha c ou rt o rder

. ” Troutt, 4 6 0 F
. 3 d a t8 9 4
. An d , wh i l e we c re d it th e jud ge ’s d e t e rm in at ion th at th e e -m ails “i m ped[ ed] [ th e co ur t’ s] mean s o fc o m m uni ca ti o n a nd ca us [ ed] the ne ce ss i tyo fa thr ea t as se ss m en t, ” he m ade n o find ing tha t im m ed iate and s um m arypuni sh m en t f orTrudeau w as necessar y to so l ve hi s co m m unica ti on probl em s; i n f act, Trudeau as ked hi s fol l owers to sto p em ailin g t h e ju d ge be for e h e e ve n got to co u rt
. Se eWi l s on ,N o. 10

- 1383 13 42 1 U .S. at 3 19 (n ot in g t h at s u m m ar y p u n ish m en t is ap p rop riate “to prev en t a breakd ow n of the p roceed ings”); s e ea l s o Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 791 F.2 d 5 77, 578 ( 7th Cir. 1986 ) (hol ding that sum m ar y pu ni shm ent w as appropri ate f or“a se ri ous inter fer ence w i th the pro cess o fj usti ce” defined as “ obs tr epero us cond uct” that bro ught the “t ri al to a hal t”)
. The j ud ge f ound that Tr u d ea u should notbe abl e t o tak e a dvantage o fthe j ud ge’ s wil l i ngness to al l ow h im a chance to appear i n cour t bef or e fi nd i ng hi m in conte m pt i n or der t o ar gue that s um m ar y c on te m p t w as im p os sib le. C

f. U nite d State s v. G ri

ff in , 84 F. 3d 820, 82 9 ( 7th Cir . 1 996) ( noti ng tha t be cause a j ud ge had the power t o u se s u m m ar y c on te m p t p ro c ed u re s, th e s am e jud ge co u ld ad j ud icate th e c ase un d er n otice-and -hearing p roced ure s). B ut becau se th e con d uc t occu rred outs ide th e j ud ge’s prese nce a nd , r atherthan bei ng f or ced to sto p proce edi ngs by Trudeau’s behavi or, the j ud ge h ad to actual l y co nve ne proce edi ngs in or der t o getTrudeau befor e the court, sum m ar y c onte m pt shoul d neverhave bee n an o pti o n he r e. This i s no t t o saythatther e s houl d be no consequence f orT rudeau’ s acti ons, onlythat absent a co m pel l i ng r eas on f o r s um m ar y di spo si ti o n, Tr ude au i s ent i tl ed to the n or m al a r r a y of p ro c ed u re s u n d er R u le 4 2(a ). Wi l s on , 421 U
. S. at31 9 ( “I n an o ngoing tr i al, with the j ud ge, j uror s, counsel, and w i tness es al lwait i ng, [ sum m ar y c on te m pt] p r o v i d e s a n a pp r o pr i a t e r e me d i a lt o o l

. . . . Wh e r e t i me i s n o to fthe e s s e nc e , h o we v e r, the [st a nd a r d c o nt e mpt proce du re s] m ay be m or e a pp ro priat e to deal with c on te m p tu ou s c on d u c t.” ); Ja ffree, 74 1 F
. 2d at 135 ( Un l e s s t i me i s o fth e e s s e n c e a n d th e r e i s s o me14 N o. 10

- 1383 “c om p ellin g re as on for a n im m ed iat e re m ed y. . . [a]ll ot h er co n tu m ac iou s c on d u c t is in d ire c t c on te m p t.” ). W h ile th e e- m ai l s su r ely i m p ed ed th e co ur t’ s func ti o n, the sum m ar y c o nt empt fi ndi ngwas no t ta i l o r ed to wa rd re s o l ut i o n o f the pr o b l e m the e - mai l s c a us e d. And , ev en i fthi s were a cl ose ca se , t h e j ud ge shoul d have e rr ed

“ o n the s i de o fp r o v i di ngthe p r o cedurals a fe g ua r ds ass ured byRule 42 ( a)
. ” Troutt, 46 0 F
. 3d at 894. B ecau se th ere w as no com p ell ingr eason f or the su m m ary d isposition an d t h e c o n d uc t d id n ot occu r i n th e cou rt’s pr es en ce, Trude au ’ s co nt empt c as e di d no t war r an t sum m ar y di sposi ti on. There f or e, the “ex cl usi ve re m edy” for T ru d ea u ’s con d u c t is fou n d in R u l e 4 2 (a). S. E.C. v. Si m ps on , 885 F. 2d 390, 39 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)
. Trudeau ar gues th at, a s a m at te r o fl aw, hi s co nduc t cou ld not r i se t o the l ev elo fc r i m i na lc ont empt b ec au se he was no t “in [ th e co urt ’ s] pr es en ce o r s o ne arthe r et o a s to o bs tructthe adm i ni str ati on o fj ustice ” su ch thathe di d not v i ol ate § 4 01 (1), see Nye v . U nited Sta tes , 31 3 U .S. 33 (19 41 ). Nye, he ar gue s, pos es a g eo g r aph i ca ll i m i ta ti o n o n, c o nt emptuo us co nduc t, a nd he a l so a r g ue s th at th er e i s no ev i den ce i n the re cor d to supp or t the not i on that he eit h er inte nd ed to o r actual l y di d obst ruct j usti ce. The posture ofthe case , how eve r, m ake s i t i m possibl e t o w ei gh hi s a rgum ents; as w e d isc u ss ed , th e v er y n at u re of su m m ar y d isp os i t i o n is th atno s epa r at e f ac t- fi ndi ngi s r equi r ed. Thi s i s al so why i ts us e sh o ul d be l i m i te d. Tr ude au do es no t ar g ue tha t o ur consi derat i on o fthe case i s l i m i ted to the re cor d r el i ed on by the di str i c t c ou rto r that furtherpro secuti on under no r m alc o nt empt pr o ce dur es i s so m eh o w es to pped bytheN o. 10

- 1383 15 j ud ge’ s choi ce to pu rs ue sum m ar y conte m pt. H e is p ro b ab ly c or re c t to a vo id th os e a rg u m en ts
. SeeTroutt, 46 0 F
. 3d at 89 5 ( r ev er sings um m ar y c o nt empt di spo si ti o n a nd re m anding f or“a n ew co ntem pt proc eedi ng tha t co m pli es w i t h th e re q u ire m en ts of R u le 4 2(a )”); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Hawkin s , 76 F
. 3d 54 5, 55 2- 53 ( 4th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( “Hav i ngf o und th atthe t r i alc o ur t co m m i tt ed r ev er sibl e e r r o r, w e a r e o fthe opi ni on that, ra ther than si m ply re ver se [ the defendant’s ] conte m pt convi cti on, the convi cti on s houl d be va cate d an d the m atter rem an d ed f or furt he r proce ed ings .
. . . ”); cf
. Lo ckhar tv. Ne l s on , 48 8 U.S
. 33 , 38 ( 1988 ) (a ffirm ing that re m and in g for a new tr i alafterr eve rs alo n a pr oce du ra l error is con sisten t w ith th e D ou ble Jeopa r d y C lau se). Unl i k e m an y c as es wher e th e en ti r e r ec o r d o fthe p ro c ee d in gs b elo w co n st itu te th e e vid en c e o f co n te m p t, all ofthe conduct here occur re d o ff the re cor d; w hat w e know is b as ed on w h a t t h e d ist ric t jud ge as ke d to inc lu d e in the r eco rd. The posture ofthe case o nce ag ai n i l lu str ate s w h y t h is c as e w as ill-su ite d for s u m m ar y d isp os itio n . I f th e c as e is refe rr e d f o r p ro se c u tio n, Tr u d ea u w ill be a b le to pu t into the r eco rd hi s fulld efe nse. A t that point, w hetherhi s co nd uct vi ol ate d § 40 1 wil lbe adj ud i cate d by a fa c t-fin d er . T ru d e a u als o a rg u es th at so licit in g e -m ails on h is own behal fwas prot ecte d cond u c t u nd erthe Fi rs t Am en dm en t, a nd tha t an y a l te r na ti ve bas i s f o r the i m posi ti on o fcr i m i nalco ntem pt ( say, under § 401( 3) f or vio lating a cour t o rder

— i n thi s c a s e , the c o ur t ’ s de c i s i on t o k e e p d i s c o v e r y c l o s e d ) i s i mp e r mi s s ib l e . B u twe express no opi ni on o n these argum ents; we don’t know16 N o. 10

- 1383

w hetherpro secuti on o fT ru deau f orhi s e - m ai l

- re l ate d c ond uct wil lbe re sum ed i n the dist ri ct c ourtpursuant to Rul e 4 2 ( a ) p r o c e d u r e s . B u ti fs o , a r g u me n t s ab o ut whethe r hi s co nduc t was c o nt emp tu o us o r pr o te ct ed bythe Fi r s t Am e nd men t s ho ul d b e mad e i n the fi r s t i ns t a nce at th e d i s tr i ctco u r ta n d o n a mo r e c o mpl e t e r e c o r d th a n we h av e h er e. Acco r di ng ly, we va ca te Tr ude au ’ s se nt en ce a nd the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi ndi ng o fco ntem pt, and re m and fo r further pr o ce eding s ac co r di ngt o 1 8 U. S
. C. § 4 01 , F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 42( a) , and thi s op i ni on. I fthe dist ri ct j ud ge choos es to co nt i nue wi ththe cr i m i na lc o nt empt pr o ce eding s an d refers Tru d eau ’s case to a pros e cu tor un d er Ru le 42(a) , Ci r cui t Rul e 36 s ha l la p p ly to th e adj udi ca ti o n o fthe c r im in al c on te m p t c h ar ge on ly. S e eC a n g ev . S t o t l e r& Co. , 91 3 F .2d 12 04 , 120 8 (7 th C ir. 19 90 )
. T h e u n d er lyin g c ivil c o nt e mptl i t i g a t i o n i s st i l lpe nd i ngi n the di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd , as f ara s we a r e co nc erne d, i s una ffecte d b y thi s o pi ni o n. See Jo hn son v. C herry, 422 F.3d 540 , 556 (7th C ir. 2005). V ACATED a nd R EMAND ED .

5- 20- 10