Document: 421 U.S. 309 95 S.Ct. 1802 44 L.Ed.2d 186 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Thomas Joseph WILSON and Bobby Antonio Bryan. No. 73—1162. Argued Dec. 17, 1974. Decided May 19, 1975. Syllabus Respondents, who had been charged, along with one Anderson, in separate indictments for bank robberies pleaded guilty, were summoned as prosecution witnesses at Anderson's trial but refused to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds still do so after being granted immunity ordered testify. The District Court then summarily held them contempt under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 42(a), which permits summary criminal punishment 'if the judge certifies that he saw or heard conduct constituting it was committed actual presence of court.' Appeals reversed, holding use power Rule 42(a) improper, remanded proceedings 42(b), calls disposition only notice hearing 'a reasonable time preparation defense.' Held: properly imposed circumstances. Harris v. United States, 382 162, 86 352, 15 240, distinguished. Pp. 314-319. (a) Respondents' refusals answer, although not delivered disrespectfully, fall within 42(a)'s express language, plainly constitute contemptuous judicial authority, since they intentional obstructions court literally disrupted progress hence orderly administration justice. 314-316. (b) face-to-face refusal comply court's order itself constituted an affront court, when kind disrupts frustrates ongoing trial, did here, must be available vindicate authority well provide recalcitrant witness some incentive P. 316. (c) supra, involved a answer before grand jury where, unlike generally is essence because may turn other matters during any delay. 318-319. 2 Cir., 488 F.2d 1231, reversed. Gerald Norton, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Sheila M. Ginsberg, New York City, respondent Wilson. John S. Martin, Jr., Mr. Chief Justice BURGER opinion Court. 1 We certiorari decide whether district impose Fed.Rules 42(a)1 has immunity, refuses such circumstances cannot dispose summarily, proceed 42(b),2 hearing, * Respondents Wilson Bryan, Robert charged robberies. Respondent Wilson, armed robbery Tuxedo, N.Y. Mount Ivy, Prior both respondents guilty charges against them, neither immediately given final sentence. Sentencing deferred, and, pending pre-sentence report, Bryan provisional 25—year sentence, required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 4208(b), (c). 3 At two robberies, prosecution. When questioned, however, each testify, contending his answers might incriminate him. 6002, 6003,3 relying Goldberg 472 513 (CA2 1973), forthwith. He informed long lie oath could prosecuted reason testimony, if continued refuse would hold contempt. nevertheless persisted their refusals, Counsel acted respondents, argued lenient sentences; counsel made no objection nature citation,4 nor claim more needed prepare defense citation. 4 Both sentenced six months' imprisonment, consecutive sentences clear consider reducing sentences, eliminating completely, decided pointed out presentence study prepared responded: 'I am going maximum . deliberate intention revising sentence what appropriate light very made.' App. 33. 5 proceeded, without Bryan's testimony evidence Anderson Ivy end Government's case motion acquittal. unable reach verdict Tuxedo robbery. later convicted 6 appealed convictions. rejected rights have violated compelling accepted contention 42(b). 1231 1973). reasoned '(i)f defense,' Fed.R.Crim.P. she marshalled presented facts mitigation charge.' Id., 1234.5 7 In requiring 42(b) considered bound its own previous decisions, this Court's decision 240 (1965). held: 8 'Summary thus immediate necessary put acts disrupting proceedings, threats judge, disturbances courtroom insolence court. It remedy used like where consists than absence question ..' States Pace, 371 810, 811 1967). 9 another interpreted language our require '(a)bsent disruptive conduct, affronts dignity pursuant explore possible exculpatory mitigating circumstances.' Marra, 482 1196, 1200 Appeals' view disorderly obstreperous interference provides occasion power. 1201—1202. 10 Because importance issue trials, Second Circuit apparently conflicts First Circuit, Baker Eisenstadt, 456 382, cert. denied, 409 846, 93 110, 118, 34 87 (1972), we certiorari. 416 981, 94 2381, 40 758 (1974). reverse. II 11 42(a),6 conduct. never intended limited situations uses scurrilous threatens creates overt physical disorder thereby trial. All certify 'saw contest these requirements are met here. Indeed, here context encounter between respondents. See Illinois Allen, 397 337, 90 1057, 25 353 (1970); Cooke 267 517, 45 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925). 12 obstructions7 Yates 227 844 (CA9 1955). contumacious silence, valid grant followed explicit, unambiguous impeded due course perhaps violent courtroom. Violent disruptions can cured swiftly bodily removing offender from courtroom, restraints, supra; see Ex parte Terry, 128 289, 77, 32 405 (1888), proceed. But demonstrates, inquiry destroy Here prosecution; same could, setting, defendant's ability establish case. 13 court,8 proceeding, re Chiles, 22 Wall. 157, 168, 819 (1875). Whether particular matter wisely leaves discretion court.9 14 Our conclusion supported fact 42 consistently recognized restatement law existing adopted, Bloom Illinois, 391 194, 209, 88 1477, 1486, 20 522 (1968); Notes Advisory Committee p. 4513; (1925),10 allowed Hale Henkel, 201 43, 26 370, 50 652 (1906); Nelson 92, 358, 673 Blair 250 273, 39 468, 63 979 (1919). Hudgings, 249 378, 339, 656 (1919); Brown Walker, 161 591, 16 644, (1896), cases cited therein, cf. Kearney, Wheat. 38, (1822); Savin, 131 267, 699, 33 150 (1889). III (1965), inapplicable crucial difference cases, deal obstructed § certain questions. brought Judge asked questions again. him inappropriate there remedy. A ordinarily deals many inquiries time, rather easily suspend action one, while completed. noted 'swiftness prerequisite justice .. Delay imperil proceedings.' U.S., 164, S.Ct., 354. Trial courts, contrary, expected dart calendars decides parties, witnesses, jurors assembled expectation will scheduled. problem continuance; said: think delay I it. equally important people concerned those following.'11 substantial all essential participants longer readily reconvenes. problems noting 'refusal (is) open, serious threat procedure.' 165, threat, literal 'breakdown' prosecution's IV 17 jurors, counsel, waiting, remedial tool discourage lawful orders prevent breakdown proceedings. Where essence, provisions adhere principle "(T)he least adequate proposed" should cases. Dunn, 204, 231, 242 (1821). Taylor Hayes, 418 488, 498, 2697, 2703, 41 897 As power, punish abused; courts appeals, abuses restricting contradiction terms, unduly limiting act firmly Reversed. 19 BLACKMUN, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring. 359 41, 79 539, 609 (1959), petitioner refused, grounds, federal jury. thereafter immunized but, returning room, again taken Judge, repeated jury's answer. refused. then, adjudged This Court, 5—4 vote, sustained judgment, expressly approved proceedings; ground anwer 'committed court,' meaning 42(a). 47—52, 545. 21 Less seven years later, new Justices, confronted factual situation identical relevant respects Brown. Harris, concluded witness' reasoned: 'The real contempt, was, jury—the directed Swearing repeating effort court' purposes served purpose, adamant position known. appearance different unrelated other. ancillary designed aid it.' 164—165, 23 overruled 167, 355—356. 24 decided. Had been, joined dissenters Harris. Although join today, write separately my conviction most, now stands nothing proposition 'in even restated persists answer.1 Summary especially indicates, ante, 319, lightly exercised.2 Nevertheless, legitimate part arsenal weapons obstruction, otherwise, seriously disputed punishable So holds, has, procedure satisfies process, read mean precisely says. BRENNAN, DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. 27 procedure: nonviolently respectfully refusing prosecute allowing defense?1 Southern punished subdivision reversed prior 1196 (1973), relied upon compelled proper Rule. affirm judgment Appeals. 28 One March 29, 1973, indictment banks, N.Y., Before participation Neither finally plea, however,2 self-incrimination though 6003.3 thereupon imprisonment consecutively conviction.4 29 today declines invitation overrule circumstance clearly compels affirmance having narrowly scope excluded application nonviolent, respectful self-incrimination.5 emphasized reached narrow category 'was reserved 'for exceptional circumstances' threatening obstructing Such acts, held, present 'the affronted: disturbance quelled; insolent tactics stopped.' 354.6 30 stated rationale interpretation follows: 31 'We concern demonstrated Congress over abuse power' wording 'misbehavior' 'actual Court.' Then speedy achieve 'summary vindication authority." continued: procedure, words Taft, fill need penal start premise ago Wheat 242, limits '(t)he proposed.' instant case, stopped. far outside envisioned 42(a).' Only last Term, "always, rightly, regarded disfavor" 'heightened potential posed power,' (1974), resorted 'immediate 498 n. 6, 2703. escape based witness, answered argues necessitated procedures unlikely disrupt effects doubt compliance necessarily trial7 event obstruction 354, justify (a). For 'where corrective steps restore maintain Johnson Mississippi, 403 212, 214, 91 1778, 1779, 423 (1971).8 respondents' self-incrimination, affronted.'9 element foreclosed judge. provides: '(a) Disposition. 'A shall recite signed entered record.' '(b) Disposition Upon Notice Hearing. except provided rule notice. state place defense, describe such. orally open defendant or, attorney appointed show cause arrest. entitled provides. admission bail rules. If involves disrespect criticism disqualified presiding consent. finding guilt enter fixing punishment.' contended coextensive privilege self-incrimination. Kastigar 406 441, 449, 92 1653, 1659, 212 (1972). ruled raised fashion, seek review conclusion. Thus concerning us. Earlier proceeding requested continuance immunity. 5. allow continuance. 6. Appeals, appeal request sufficient Government does ruling address example, mentioned Wilson's experience suggested possibility psychiatric defense. With prepare, said, 'enlarged (Wilson's) mental health, shown relationship psychological difficulties serve witness.' F.2d, 1234—1235. record support On examination determine competency stand 4244. found competent; lawyer revealed family antisocial behavior. 13. agreed further investigation helpful sentencing purposes. 12, 17. either moment charge. appropriately placed probation treatment confined prison. 13, applies defined 401. Bessette W. B. Conkey Co., 194 324, 326—327, 665, 666, 48 997 (1904); Robinson, 505, 510, 205 (1874). That statute fine discretion, '(m) isbehavior person near thereto obstruct justice.' predecessor enacted limit broad Judiciary Act 1789, Stat. 73. Nye 313 33, 45, 50, 61 814, 816, 85 1172 (1941). Courts indiscriminately persons occurred which, truth, direct dignity, phrase thereto' apply geographical limitation 816. Misbehavior actually face remained actions 'actually interrupting business,' id., 52, 817, just 'misbehavior vicinity quiet order.' Ibid. explained protection accorded also offered opportunity speak behalf. Groppi Leslie, 404 496, 501, 582, 585, 632 Moreover, 19—20, 21, termed intentional. himself personally insulted. indicated affronted actions. angry up him.' 14. don't (Bryan) chip shoulder towards me.' Shillitani 384 364, 9, 1531, 1536, 622 (1966), '(T)he (should) first feasibility coercing through imposition civil resort sanctions determines, good reason, inappropriate.' Here, course, admonition carries little weight contemptuously incarcerated pleas. Under confinement Contrast, Anglin Johnston, 504 1165 (CA7 1974), 420 962, 1353, 43 440 (1975). careful relented obeyed factors deciding reduce sentences. Supra, 312. Sources contemporaneous adoption uniformly indicate subsection substantially law, N.Y.U. School Law, Institute Proceedings—Federal Rules Criminal Procedure 73 (1946); Dession, Federal Procedure: II, 56 Yale L.J. 197, 224 268 (1947); Orfield, Procedure, Neb.L.Rev. 570, 613 189 (1947), alter required. Solicitor General invited Brief 24. Since jury, agree tacit save overruling day. opposed drastic usually preferred remedy, aware requirement less sanction employed despite already substantive offenses, appears service interrupted compel intervening See, e.g., Liddy, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 510 669 980, 1408, 661 (1975); presided deferred Another assigned indictment, 25-year evaluation 4208(b). After young adult indeterminate term 5010(b), reduced years. invoked, attempted approval represent witnesses. 'Sections 6003 provide: 6002. Immunity generally. 'Whenever refuses, basis information to— '(1) '(2) agency '(3) House Congress, joint committee Houses, subcommittee House, 'and communicates issued part, self-incrimination; (or directly indirectly derived information) perjury, giving false statement, otherwise failing order. '§ 6063. individual called issue, accordance section, district, give become effective section 6002 part. may, Attorney General, Deputy designated Assistant judgment— public interest; likely self-incrimination.' stayed appeal. adequately objected procedures: '(U)nder circumstances, research fifth amendment objection. And penalize appellant failure make timely present. her best protect sanctioned efforts regard, fully considerations behalf mitigate charge thereunder, usefulness development considerations.' 1234 close acquittal second prejudice sentencing. merits 'forbidden use': 'If doubted Lasker mind statements testified ordered, Cf. 513, 516 (2d Cir. Similarly, genuinely feared increased plea result testifying he, too, evidence, precautions (e.g., sealing record) insure Cooper privy were, obey mandate .." 1233. broader (1959). believed objective framers "substantially law." 165 3, argument, stating: 'In uncomplicated type, simple brief consultation retained enable sound why day likelihood hour suspended minimum disruption process. furthermore, lessens risk contumacy fright, confusion, misunderstanding. advice faced cooperate.' 1202. 810 said case: Significantly, reveals (cf. Panico 375 84 (1963)). 'Finally, posture silent exist appellants, developed plenary hearing.' 1235. specify Nilva 352 385, 395, 77 431, 437, 415 (1957). '(Rule 42(b)) controlling occurring too most presence.' C. Wright, Practice 171—172 (1969). undisputed asserted respectfully. commented privilege: 32.

Category: 0