Opinion ID: 205134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Carolina

Text: The Supreme Court of South Carolina accepted a direct appeal of Brandt's conviction for criminal contempt. In that appeal, Brandt argued that the state trial court erred in issuing a citation for constructive criminal contempt as a result of a summary proceeding in which [he] was afforded none of the procedural safeguards required by due process, including notice, counsel, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. J.A. at 71. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed Brandt's conviction of criminal contempt, explaining its reasoning as follows: Direct contempt involves contemptuous conduct in the presence of the court. A person may be found guilty of direct contempt if the conduct interferes with judicial proceedings, exhibits disrespect for the court, or hampers the parties or witnesses. Direct contempt that occurs in the court's presence may be immediately adjudged and sanctioned summarily. South Carolina courts have always taken a liberal and expansive view of the presence and court requirements. The presence of the court extends beyond the mere physical presence of the judge or the courtroom to encompass all elements of the system. This Court has recognized that depositions are judicial proceedings and are within the presence of the court. . . . Because there is no presiding authority, it is even more incumbent upon attorneys to conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner during a deposition. In the present case, the record shows that Brandt presented a fraudulent document to the court. The document was introduced at the deposition of Professor John Freeman. . . . Further, the record shows that Brandt was the sole cause of the introduction of the document into this case when he provided a supplemental response to the request to produce one day before Professor Freeman's deposition. We hold that the introduction of the document into the deposition constituted an introduction of the document into the presence of the court, warranting a citation for direct contempt. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in citing Brandt for direct criminal contempt. Brandt, 630 S.E.2d at 264 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Brandt subsequently filed a petition for rehearing, urging the Supreme Court of South Carolina to reconsider its holding [that] any contempt which affects any element of the judicial system is a direct contempt, regardless of exigency and regardless of whether the situation was amenable to significant delay which would allow the accused the protections of notice, counsel, and an opportunity to be heard. J.A. at 144. The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the petition for rehearing. See Brandt, 630 S.E.2d at 259, reh'g denied, June 7, 2006.