Document: 391 U.S. 194 88 S.Ct. 1477 20 L.Ed.2d 522 S. Edward BLOOM, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 52. Argued Jan. 16, 17, 1968. Decided May 20, Anthony Bradley Eben, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. J. Hladis, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted in an Illinois state court criminal contempt and sentenced to imprisonment 24 months willfully petitioning admit probate a will falsely prepared executed after death putative testator. made timely demand jury trial which refused. Since Duncan v. State Louisiana, 145, 1444, 491, Constitution held guarantee right serious cases courts, we must now decide whether it also guarantees punished by two-year prison term. I. 2 Whether federal courts may try without has been recurring question this Article III, § 2, provides that '(t)he Trial all Crimes, except Cases Impeachment, shall be Jury * *.' The Sixth Amendment states '(i)n prosecutions, accused enjoy speedy public trial, impartial Fifth Fourteenth Amendments forbid both Federal Government States from depriving any person 'life, liberty, or property, due process law.' Notwithstanding these provisions, until United Barnett, 376 681, 84 984, 12 23, rehearing denied, 377 973, 1642, 742 (1964), Court consistently upheld constitutional power punish trial. Eilenbecker District Plymouth County, 134 31, 36—39, 10 424, 426—427, 33 L.Ed. 801 (1890); I.C.C. Brimson, 154 447, 488—489, 14 1125, 1137—1138, 38 1047 (1894); In re Debs, 158 564, 594—596, 15 900, 910—911, 39 1092 (1895); Gompers States, 233 604, 610—611, 34 693, 695—696, 58 1115 (1914); Green 356 165, 183—187, 78 632, 642—645, 672 (1958).1 These construed Due Process Clause otherwise inclusive language III as permitting summary trials because at common law tried intervention other agency considered essential proper effective functioning administration justice. 3 supra, signaled possible change view. Appeals Circuit certified there impending proceeding. Following prior cases, five-man majority no cases. Criminal contempt, intrinsically aside particular penalty imposed, not deemed offense requiring protection However, put raised certification firmly settled issue severe punishment would itself trigger indicated, explication, some members were view limited could imposed where jury. U.S., 694—695 n. 12, 991—992. 4 Two years later, Cheff Schnackenberg, 384 373, 86 1523, 16 629 (1966), involved term six court, rejected claim guaranteed Contempt did 'of itself' warrant treatment than petty offense; months' permitted dealing with case prosecution 'a offense, under our decisions does require trial.' 379—380, 1525 (1966). See Callan Wilson, 127 540, 1301, 32 223 (1888); Schick 195 65, 826, 49 99 (1904); Columbia Clawans, 300 617, 57 660, 81 843 (1937). It necessary consider applied contempt. Now, however, holding extends Bloom's case, once again confront broad rule contempts can constitutionally Barnett presaged re-examination doctrine later time; time arrived. 5 proceeding task, are acutely aware responsibility assume entertaining challenges principle is entrenched behind weighty ancient authority. Our deliberations have convinced us, so nearly like crimes they subject provisions Constitution, binding on traditional infirm insofar permits honoring We accept judgment unless makes one; but, view, dispensing subjected represents unacceptable construction 'an unconstitutional assumption powers (courts) lapse respectable array should make us hesitate correct.' Black & White Taxicab Transfer Co. Brown Yellow Co., 276 518, 533, 48 404, 408, 72 681 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting). strong, though sharply challenged, historical support;2 but neither circumstance nor considerations necessity efficiency normally offered defense established rule, justify denying prosecutions just crimes. II. 6 crime ordinary sense; violation law, wrong punishable fine both. words Holmes: 7 'These infractions visited such. If such acts criminal, error most fundamental characteristic word understood English speech.' 610, 695, (1914).3 8 Criminally contemptuous conduct violate law; even when convictions indistinguishable convictions, their impact individual defendant same. Indeed, role many laws seem identical—protection institutions government enforcement mandates. 9 Given every respect, apply. hold is, primarily terms those substantial difference between more compelling argument providing against arbitrary exercise official power. Contemptuous conduct, wrong, often strikes vulnerable human qualities judge's temperament. Even direct insult judge, frequently rejection judicial authority, interference duties officers court. long recognized potential abuse exercising imprison contempt—it 'arbitrary' 'liable abuse.' Ex parte Terry, 128 289, 313, 77, 82, 405 (1888). '(I)ts delicate one, care needed avoid oppressive conclusions.' Cooke 267 517, 539, 45 390, 396, 69 767 (1925).4 11 apprehensions about unbridled summarily reflected march events Congress since adopted. Judiciary Act 1789; 17 provided 'shall imprisonment, discretion said authority cause hearing before same Stat. 83. Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 227—228, 242 (1821). This open-ended deal only mode punishment, proved unsatisfactory Congress. Abuses 1789 culminated unsuccessful impeachment proceedings James Peck, district judge who had imprisoned disbarred one Lawless publishing criticism Peck's opinions appeal. result drastic curtailment 1831, 487. Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510—511, 22 205 (1874); Savin, 131 267, 275—276, 699, 150 (1889). That misbehavior presence near thereto obstruct justice; transactions; disobedience resistance lawful writ, process, order, decree court.5 major revision sphere, 'narrowly confined' 'substantially curtailed' summarily, Nye 313 33, 47—48, 61 810, 815—816, 85 1172 (1941), continued present day basis general contempt.6 62 701, 18 U.S.C. 401. sensitive resides Before 19th century out, distinction carefully drawn occurring within formal presentation evidence dispensed with, normal adversary procedures required. Later, say 'it certain presumed innocent, he guilty beyond reasonable doubt, cannot compelled testify himself.' Buck's Stove Range 221 418, 444, 31 492, 499, 55 797 (1911). Michaelson ex rel. St. P., M. O.R. 266 42, 66, 18, 162 (1924). Chief Taft speaking unanimous 537, 395, (1925), said: 13 'Due therefore, committed open requires advised charges opportunity meet them way explanation. think includes assistance counsel, if requested, call witnesses give testimony, relevant either complete exculpation extenuation mitigation panalty imposed.' Cf. Blackmer 284 421, 440, 52 252, 255, 76 375 (1932). entitled unbiased Oliver, 333 257, 68 92 682 (1948); Offutt 348 11, 75 (1954); see Ungar Sarafite, 575, 841, 921 (1964); cf. Levine 362 80 1038, 989 (1960).7 system procedural protections available contemnors set forth Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 42. Judicial concern procedure. Toledo Newspaper 247 402, 560, 1186 (1918), endorsed 1831 'so (to court) justice.' required 'tendency prevent discharge duty Id., 419, 564. Craig Hecht, 263 277, 44 103, 106, 293 (1923). aberrational overruled 47—52, 815—817, narrowly proscribed 'misbehavior vicinity disrupting quiet order actually interrupting its business.' 52, S.Ct., 1817. 422, 565 congressional purpose fence further implemented Cammer 350 399, 407—408, 456, 460—461, 100 474 (1956). A lawyer, held, 'is kind 'officer' 401(2).' another development, First invoked ban category arguably out-of-court conduct. Bridges California, 314 190, 192 (1941); Pennekamp Florida, 328 331, 66 1029, 90 1295 (1946); Harney, 331 367, 67 1249, 91 1546 (1947). Finally, over punishments unauthorized statute too harsh. E.g., Mine Workers America, 330 258, 677, 884 (1947); Yates 355 128, 95 (1957).8 course demonstrates unwisdom vesting judiciary completely untrammeled clear need safeguards power's abuse. Prosecutions play significant system; despite important values protects, legislatures gradually eroded judges own modern times, come mirror used experience teaches infrequently resulting extremely penalties, 751, 1018 (Goldberg, dissenting), obtained laws. matter extended III. Nor reasons contrary result. As read earlier upholding jury, doubted check. Rather, seems thought preserve dignity, independence, effectiveness process—'To submit tribunal, operate deprive half efficiency.' 595, 910, (1895). point do agree: judgment, contemplated, rejecting squared justified desirability vindicating respect consideration interest benefit worked out Genuine alone lend true dignity establishment, engendered, fear unlimited firm through institutionalized centuries. place little credence notion independence hangs persuaded additional expense possibly submitting juries seriously handicap courts. deny sometimes reject contention goals dispatch, economy, important, amply served preserving commit civil recognizing offenses Constitution. When issue, ensuring even-handed isolated instances recalcitrant irrational acquit rather apply them. wrestled problem hundreds years, devised minimize miscarriages justice malfunctioning system. Perhaps extent sacrifice efficiency, expedition, choice favor made, retained, sound reason logic policy area Some special mention warranted. Rule 42(a) Rules Procedure '(a) certifies saw heard constituting actual court.' reflects common-law widely uniformly followed States. Although based part premise specially facts occurred very rests maintain deliberative atmosphere courtroom. quell disturbance attend upon impaneling There strong temptation exception establish today disorders convinced, needed. old found offenses. Only reaffirmed position. 159—162, 1452—1454, 491. By deciding treat concerned, similarly IV. 21 Bloom filing spurious probate. At his testator died July 6, 1964, date Pauline Owens, practical nurse decedent, engaged draw execute decedent's name. dated June 21, 1964. knew false presented admission Probate Division Cook County. State's Attorney county filed complaint charging petitioner's motion denied. months. On appeal Supreme Court, conviction affirmed. proceedings. 35 Ill.2d 220 N.E.2d 475 granted certiorari, 386 1003, 87 1346, 431 (1967). contends constituted forgery Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 38, 17—3. Defendants face sentence exceed $1,000, statute, Under maximum People Stollar, 154, 201 97 (1964). settle 'the exact location line crimes' two offense.' 161, 162, 1454. years. analysis 387 629, sort regardless involved. Cheff, legislature expressed seriousness fixing look best offense. Duncan, 35, him right. Accordingly, reverse remand inconsistent opinion. 23 Reversed remanded. For concurring FORTAS, 1459. 25 JUSTICE concurring.* 26 I join judgments agree accord petty. powerful reaching conclusion course, logical seeking, time, content "due law," guided great Bill Rights Considerations practice forum generally, history office task. believe, my Brother White's Louisiana persuasively argues, well federal, liberty law" accorded it. 27 progression history, especially deepening realization substance demands require, caused invest command increasingly greater substance. lists outstanding stations progression, ante, 147-148. progressive recognition phrase describes "spacious language" Learned Hand called "majestic generality." Congress, moved forward advancing conception rights according substantive individuals conflict 28 But although decision implication, 158-159, 30, tail go hide: hold, influenced Amendment, process" offenses, automatically import ancillary rules hereafter developed incidental whatever, example, impose requirements verdicts conclude features means -- obligatory 29 then points today. Neither intent draftsmen provision together total gloss Court's supplied. intended what said, less; life, property law. ultimately interpret, ascribe specific meaning phrase. whatever that, doing, bound slavishly follow bag baggage, however securely insecurely affixed precedent To take unnecessary mischievous inflict blow federalism. commands standard assure basic fairness. rigidly arbitrarily pattern 50 contrary, Constitution's command, insistence observance should, far possible, allow greatest latitude differences. requires, limits lofty standards prescribes Government, diversity minimal imposition uniformity method detail sets up union, monolith. 30 heretofore various freedom speech religion prohibition unreasonable searches seizures Fourth privilege self-incrimination counsel confrontation "are enforced protect personal encroachment." Malloy Hogan, 378 1, Pointer Texas, 380 400, 406 (1965); Miranda Arizona, 436, 464 quarrel instances. adheres incorporation theory, body substance, superimposed respectfully urgently suggest be. applicable s business State. While believe (and believe) fundamental, particulars uniform. ready welcome variations impair indeed, advance theory HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. dissent dissenting 171, 1460, separate 380, 1526, 629. 23; 672. completes remarkable circle. procedure shown fairness originally Amendment. sole justification Rights. now, stating reasons, imposes related recently declined find Holmes,* inveighing 'unconstitutional (state) Courts States' derogation central support action here down vagaries times. Many supported accepted question. collected 191, 647, (1958) (concurring opinion); 694, 991, list Justices apparently subscribed long. 192, 647. inherent regulation Chicago 65—67, 19—20, (1924), Clayton Act. Larremore, Constitutional Regulation Harv.L.Rev. 615 (1900). Blackstone's description appears Commentaries Laws England 286—287: 'The attachment necessarily themselves; competent secure vain negatory. power, supreme justice, suppress immediate offender results first principles establishments, inseparable attendant superior tribunal. 'If instantly apprehended imprisoned, judges, proof examination. matters arise distance, perfect knowledge, confession party testimony others, affidavit sufficient ground suspect committed, suspected show why him, or, flagrant issues instance; discharge; thereupon confirms absolute original rule.' And id., 280. similar account contained W. Hawkins, Treatise Pleas Crown 4, 141 (2d ed. 1724). Of 'Blackstone's satisfactory exposition England. (U)ndoubtedly, framers familiar it.' 69, 827, (1904). Blackstone, departure principles: 'It escaped attention reader making answer oath charge agreeable genius instance. *' 287. unalloyed 'immemorial usage' derive (later Justice) Wilmot's undelivered King Almon (1765), brought light posthumous publication papers, Wilmot, Notes 243 (1802), reprinted Eng.Rep. 94. source become authoritative Rex Clement, Barn. Ald. 218, 233, 106 918, 923 (K.B. 1821). Roach Garvan, Atk. 469, 683 (Ch. 1742). discussion How.St.Tr. 14, 22—23, 49—59, subsequent action, Burdett Abbot, East 138, 104 501, 554 1811); Taunt. 401, (Ex. 1812); Dow 202, 1289, 1302 (H.L. 1817). authenticity vigorously initially Solly-Flood, Story Prince Henry Monmouth Chief-Justice Gascoign, Transactions Royal Historical Society (N.S.) 47, 61—64, 147—150 (1886). led massive reappraisal undertaken Sir John Fox: Almon, Pts. L.Q.Rev. 184, (1908); Summary Punish Contempt, 238, 354 (1909); Eccentricities Law 36 394 (1920); Nature 37 191 (1921); Practice Cases, 185 (1922); Writ Attachment, 40 43 (1924); Fox, History (1927). R. Goldfarb, Power (1963). writers interpreted Fox's work showing late 17th early 18th centuries, apart extraordinary Star Chamber, had, claimed, contempts, process. Frankfurter Landis, Contempts 'Inferior' Courts—A Study Separation Powers, 1010, 1042—1052 Oswald, 3, (g) (Robertson ed., 1910). appraisal evidence, probably valid libel stranger proceedings, outside consisting contumacious behavior officer permissible. 49—50, 98 100, 108—110, 208—209 (1927); Pt. 244—246 (1909). Fox questioned summarily. sufficiently simple unambiguous rest entirely grounds, particularly Solly-Flood's 611, 66—67, 185, 644, (1958). event, ultimate historically correct never acceptable Thompson Utah, 170 343, 350, 620, 622, 42 1061 (1898). City New Orleans Steamship 387, 392, (1874) ('(c)ontempt offence'); O'Neal 190 36, 776, 777, 47 945 (1903) (an adjudication 'in effect case'); Bessette B. Conkey 324, 336, 665, 670, 997 (1904) (that 'criminal nature constantly affirmed'); (1924) ('(t)he characteristics (crimes contempts) same'); 201, 652, (Black, dissenting) ('criminal manifestly test history'). Bessette, 335, 'cannot infamous crime.' 'That otherwise, capable certain. Men bench exhibit vanity, irascibility, narrowness, arrogance, weaknesses flesh heir.' Sacher 343 451, 96 717 (1952). Hudgings, 249 378, 337, 63 656 (1919); Section stated: several attachments extend misbehaviour persons transactions, party, juror, witness, persons, decree, courts.' concluded 208 regular obstruction generally Nelles King, Publication Col.L.Rev. 525 (1928). date, passing Act, focused criminally nature, months, 738, 402. Circumscription carried Norris-LaGuardia arising injunctions issued labor disputes. 72, 3692. Civil 1957, 71 638, 151, 1995, de novo fined excess $300 days, being misbehavior, misconduct, 268, 1101, 2000h, $1,000 Again officers. Proof mens rea specifically Goldfarb Kurzman, Liberties: Issue, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 486, 496—506 (1965). eligible executive pardon, Grossman, 87, 332, 527 limitations, 611—613, Pendergast 317 412, 368 (1943). Limitations penalties According Note, Law: Constructs Limited Right Contemnors, 1967 Duke L.J. 654, 84, absence less, three defendant, year (this group Illinois, which, demonstrates, limitation), limitation else exceeds year, finally, while statutes relating kinds provisions. Independent examination suggests materials concerning precise computation difficult. clear, less Most Western countries highly restrictive given Jann, Germany, Am.U.L.Rev. (1959); Bigelow, Crim.L.Q. Pekelis, Legal Techniques Political Ideologies: Comparative Study, 41 Mich.L.Rev. 665 contrast, Administration 1960, Eliz. 65. Harnon, Mod.L.Rev. 179 (1962). [This applies 410, p. 145.] See, e.g., Bail Reform 1966, Pub. L. 89-465, 3141 et. seq. (1964 Supp. II); 88-455, 3006A; Selection Service 1968, 90-274, 82 53; Schowgurow State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A. 2d Proposed Penal York, 64 Col Rev. 1469 532, (dissenting opinion, quoted 198).

Category: 0