Document: 381 U.S. 131 85 S.Ct. 1375 14 L.Ed.2d 290 L. W. HOLT et al., Petitioners,v.COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. No. 464. Argued April 27 and 28, 1965. Decided May 17, Marvin M. Karpatkin, New York City, for petitioners. Francis C. Lee, Richmond, Va., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioners, both whom are lawyers, were adjudged guilty each was fined $50 contempt court by Circuit Court City Hopewell, Virginia. Virginia Supreme Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contentions that their convictions violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 205 Va. 332, 136 S.E.2d 809. We granted certiorari. 379 957, 644, 13 553. 2 charges against petitioners came about in this way. Petitioner Dawley represented certain defendants a libel suit pending before Judge Holladay. case dismissed agreement parties. After dismissal Holladay had clerk counsel, including petitioner Dawley, come into judge's chambers there judge asked three times if he anything to do with making 'unavailable be served subpoenas.' refused answer later, court, again answer. then directed Commonwealth's Attorney prepare an order directing show cause why should not punished contempt. thereafter filed motion requesting disqualify himself from trying case. denied motion. change venue. Holt appeared as counsel representing read part his argument urging It is upon allegations reading them present based. 3 venue charged, among other things, because local prejudice could get fair trial Hopewell and, crucial conviction, 4 '3. That said Carlton E. Holladay, who presided suit, fails refuses Defendant, A. Jr., has, respect action now effect and/or fact acting police officer, chief prosecution witness, adverse witness defense, grand jury, prosecutor judge. 5 '4. addition foregoing, did intimidate harass intimidating harassing lawyer viz, Leonard Holt, Esq., which seriously hamper efforts defending Jr.; harassment intimidation arises out connected solely Holt's participating defense Jr. action; occurred at hearing on January 8, 1962, revealed been independent investigation inquiry conduct place time made statement would 'deal with' after he, judge, dealt Jr.' these colloquy took place: 6 'The Court: On venue, does apply whether your client tried jury or Court? Does it cases? 7 'Mr. Holt: say apply. 8 Apply cases. 9 ,'at I might see how can pass unnoticed matters things have presented plea here argued court. think contemptuous, contemptuous. 10 'At held summarily 11 'I will take under advisement punishment advise you during day. 12 'Court adjourn lunch. Please, adjourns, may we specificity regarding what considered pleading, anything, contemptuous? laws Commonwealth United States position—that something has elements intent present, element flow terms— don't need any specification bill particulars that. it, plain people courtroom remarks 15 'And stands adjourned lunch.' 16 Thereafter $50. 17 Appeals, affirming, language used Code Ann. § 18.1 292 (1960 Repl. Vol.), authorizes summary person misbehaves presence so obstruct justice, uses '(v)ile, contemptuous insulting language' official acts.1 Petitioners contend through application state law several respects deny due process guaranteed view one makes unnecessary us consider others.2 18 charged disobeyed valid order, talked loudly, acted boisterously, attempted prevent officer carrying duties. Their rest nothing whatever except motions disqualification alleged bias part. claimed, probably filing motions, duty they owed ordered appear defend charge counsel. And settled Sixth Amendment guarantee defendant such 'an opportunity heard defense—a right day court—* * counsel.' In re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. 682. See also Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799. must necessarily embody file pleadings essential claims raise relevant issues. Willner Committee Character Fitness, 373 96, 105, 1175, 1181, 224. since 'A tribunal basic requirement process,' Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, 99 942, follows escape biased constitutional issues essential. Cf. Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 722, 81 1639, 1642, 751; Tumey State Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 749. Consequently, neither nor consistently convicted unless thought justify conviction. 19 As previously stated, words English, no way offensive themselves, wholly appropriate community presiding 'a vehicle heap insults studied attempt smear judge.' 338, S.E.2d, 814. But 'insulting' inherent issue raised, seen according charges, probability constitutionally unfair trial. apparently contends involved either (1) proper form authorized circumstances, (2) false. first argument, assuming relevance where asserts federally trial, duly clerk, without objection set down hearing, specifically invited decided merits, intimation circumstances. Nor accept Virginia's apparent contention sustained ground truth falsity heard, choosing instead convict sentence having done more than make charges. Even failure prove circumstances ever basis cannot unproven assumption. 20 Our conclusion doing exercising accused cases made. judgment conviction reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 21 Reversed remanded. 22 HARLAN, dissenting. 23 manner professional standards governing members Bar. This sets aside trivial disciplinary penalty imposed simply its bounds. Believing differences over propriety actions involve proportions, affirm Appeals.* courts judges attachments contempt, punish summarily, only following: '(1) Misbehavior near thereto interrupt administration justice; '(2) Violence, threats violence, juror, party going to, attending returning proceeding court; '(3) Vile, addressed published act had, like intended proceeding; '(4) character; '(5) Disobedience resistance lawful process, judgment, decree court.' 18.1—292 Vol.). reach questions invalid misconduct disturb court's business threaten demoralization authority, cf. 277—278, 509—510, 682, committed open personally embroiled interested controversy issue. reached said, record, substantial federal question (ante, pp. 135-136, n. 2).

Category: 3