Legal Document

404 U.S. 496 92 Supreme Court Reporter 582 30 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 632 James E. GROPPI, Petitioner,v.Jack LESLIE, Sheriff of Dane County. Number 70—112. Argued Nov. 10, 1971. Decided Jan. 13, 1972. Syllabus Wisconsin legislative resolution citing petitioner for contempt conduct on the floor State Assembly that occurred two days previous to and sentencing him confinement held violative due process, since petitioner, who was readily available, given no notice before adopted or afforded any opportunity respond by way defense extenuation. Pp. 499—507. 436 Federal Reporter, 2nd 326 331, reversed. William M. Coffey, Milwaukee, Wis., petitioner. Sverre O. Tinglum, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted writ certiorari review holding Appeals, Seventh Circuit, denying relief in habeas corpus proceedings after District had relief. 2 On October 1, 1969, Legislature passed a directing his County jail period six months duration 1969 Regular Session legislature, whichever shorter. The recited had, previously, led gathering people which, its presence during regular meeting violation an Rule, 'prevented from conducting public business performing constitutional duty.' contained finding petitioner's actions constituted 'disorderly immediate view house directly tending interrupt proceedings' which authorized punish under Constitution statutes.1 3 record us contains little flesh out recitations with details day September 29, 1969. Court, application corpus, ex rel. Groppi versus Leslie, 44 Wis.2d 282, 171 North Western 192, took judicial designed protest cuts state budget certain welfare programs, 'occupation' chamber supporters continued midday 'well toward midnight,' all time prevented lawful business.2 4 without giving affording present information mitigation. A copy then served who, at passed, already confined following arrest disorderly charges arising same incident as underlying resolution.3 Petitioner's he pursuant authority. 5 Petitioner commenced both federal courts contending violated rights, seeking release. applications were denied Circuit However, acted, application. been process law guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment failure accord 'some minimal appear charge' prior imposition punishment contempt. appeal, Appeals reversed Court; panel narrowly divided court rehearing en banc. certiorari. For reasons stated herein, we conclude procedures employed punishing contempt, reverse judgment Appeals. 6 * past decisions this expressly recognizing power Houses Congress contemptuous leave question imposes general barriers exercise such power. E.g., Jurney MacCracken, 294 125, 55 375, 79 L.Ed. 802 (1935); Anderson Dunn, Wheat. 204, 242 (1821). There is nothing would place greater restrictions than Government regard. See Kilbourn Thompson, 103 168, 199, 26 377 (1881). are therefore concerned only Due Process Clause requires legislature meet imposing committee presence. 7 This has often recognized requirements cannot be ascertained through mechanical formula. See, e.g., Cafeteria Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473, AFL—CIO McElroy, 367 886, 894—895, 81 1743, 1748—1749, 1230 (1961); Hannah Larche, 363 420, 80 1502, 1307 (1960). Frankfurter, another context, aptly 'is compounded history, reason, course decisions, stout confidence strength democratic faith profess. . ..' Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 162—163, 71 624, 644, 95 817 (1951) (concurring opinion). Courts must sensitive nature proceeding 'possible burden proceeding' procedure might entail. U.S., 442, S.Ct., 1515. Legislatures not full-scale trials quasi-judicial should demand they do so although possess inherent protect their own processes existence proceedings. States, example, longer undertakes powers cases but elects delegate function courts. 52 Statutes-at-Large 942, Code KF62 §§ 192—194. 8 potential disrupting immobilizing vital Governments flow rule requiring full-blown 'trial' factor entitled very great weight; particularly true where conduct, here, committed body. strongly indicate panoply procedural rights accorded defendant criminal trial never thought necessary customary practice provide contemnor bar House, committee, give answer misconduct charged against him. 143—144, 376—377; 173, 174; Wheat., 209—211; Marshall Gordon, 243 521, 532, 37 448, 449, 61 881 (1917).4 Such have colonial times, early legislatures.5 more nearly resembles traditional right allocution sentence it does prosecution. Green 365 301, 653, 670 (1961). II 9 In case, however, there occasion define delineate precisely what conduct. Here, Assembly, occurred, found sentenced kind answer. having fled become otherwise unavailable for, noted, county time, could easily notice, if indeed compelled, Assembly. find our shed light precise problem, warrant summary coming did Indeed, again reasonable charge heard imposed 'basic system jurisprudence.' re Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 682 (1948). 143, 164—165, 171—172, 178, 185, 633, 644—645, 648—649, 652, 655 opinions Black, Douglas, Jackson, JJ.); Cole Arkansas, 196, 201, 514, 517, 644 emphasized fundamental principle less standing personal liberty stake. Sniadach Family Finance Corp., 395 337, 89 1820, 23 349 (1969); Morgan 304 18, 58 773, 776, 82 1129 (1938); Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 394, 34 779, 783, 1363 (1914). Mullane Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 306, 70 94 865 (1950), Stated: 10 'Many controversies raged about cryptic abstract words can doubt minimum require deprivation life, property adjudication preceded hearing appropriate case.' 313, 656. 11 Although language addressed adjudication, hostorical legislatures themselves value 12 heard, however briefly—the length traditionally left largely body—the putative establish, case mistaken identity, or, also affirmative defense, mentally incompetent.6 Other matters explanation mitigation lessen harshness avoid altogether. III 13 Wisconsin, argues summarily contempts follows logically respect. Ex parte Terry, 128 289, 77, 32 405 (1888). Even assumed fully analogous respect, recorded dealing impose show ordinarily exercised conditions those lapse event kind. like court, must, necessity, act 'immediately' 'instantly' quell disorders able maintain authority continue proper dispatch business. 274—275, 508 509; 308, 310, 81; Johnson Mississippi, 403 212, 214, 91 1778, 1779, 29 423 (1971); Mayberry Pennsylvania, 400 455, 463, 504, 27 532 (1971). Where, episode much difficult argue action preserve order enable body proceed 14 perhaps related deterrence disposed create restoring order. But equally served—perhaps even better—by bringing being declared sentenced.7 15 Where acts immediately eye, present, course. nor formal sense because judge personally seen offense acting basis observations.8 16 Moreover, situation, normally speak behalf allocution. Levine 362 610, 613—614, 1038, 1041—1042, 989 (1960); Brown 359 41, 52, 539, 547, 609 (1959); Sacher, 182 416, 418 (CA2 1950), aff'd, 343 72 451, 96 717 (1952). circumstances, utterance excusable develop suffering some mental disorder rendering unable conform conventional behavior. event, absence contemnor, him, assurance members acting, observation identification engaging charged, whatsoever mitigation, fact offender. 17 supra, control case. circuit acted promptly contemnor—who lawyer voluntarily absented himself courtroom while adjacent room building. concluded defeat jurisdiction soon reasonably possible voluntary departure courtroom. 310—311, 81—82. reasoned 18 'The room, near by, building, act. And departure, making apology of, justly aggravate offence, make plain that, consistently interests, delay upon part exerting punish.' Id., 311, 82. 19 Dealing narrow circumstances reserved whether subsequent according heard. 314, 83. By contrast, was, detained city, hence available notice. Sacher (1952), approved judge's waiting until end nine-month hold counsel9 breaches trial. careful observe prejudiced defendants eyes jury impeded advocacy. contemnors throughout trial, repeatedly warned contemptuous, advised called account later,10 speak.11 20 At stage history limited '(t)he least adequate proposed.' 231; 274, 508. While different result well follow occurrence chamber,12 nearby within Capitol beyond legitimate scope respond. 21 Reversed. 22 POWELL REHNQUIST consideration decision text follows: '1969 Spec. Sess. 'ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 'Citing commitment jail. 'In session Rule duty; now, therefore, 'Resolved That finds above-cited punishable Section 13.26(1)(b) Statutes Article IV, therefore: '(1) Finds guilty Assembly; '(2) accordance Sections 13.26 13.27 Statutes, orders imprisonment months, session, briefer, directs sheriff seize said person deliver jailer jail; and, further 'Resolved, transmitted district attorney 13.27(2) Statutes; respectfully requested represent litigation herefrom.' § 8, provides part: 'Each may determine rules proceedings, behavior 13.26, Wis.Stat. (1967), Each imprisonment, breach privileges '(b) Disorderly term section shall extend legislature.' oral argument, counsel conceded these facts. paucity attributed pleadings evidentiary hearing. Tr. Oral Arg. 4, 27. subsequently tried charge. He discharged reach verdict. generally Atlantic Hinds, Precedents House Representatives, chapters 51, 52; Eberling, Congressional Investigations: Study Origin Development Power Investigate Punish Contempt (1928). Hinds discusses assault one reporter June 11, 1836. party appointed select investigate matter. appeared admitted offense. Before report passing resolution, brought Bar House. 1630. numerous instances 'direct' behalf. 1642—1643, 1647, 1648, 1650—1653, 1657, 1665. Clarke, Parliamentary Privilege American Colonies 103—105, 109—111 n. 47, 112—113 (1943); Potts, Legislative Bodies Contempt, 74 U.Pa.L.Rev. 691, 704—705, 707, 711—712, 716, 718, 719—722, 724—725 (1926). latter body, direct psychiatric examination. It disoriented appreciate punished Under neither obligation afford forum expound political, economic, social views; mean brief matter specifically extenuation, required. limit strictly clear elements observed judge. 214—215, 1779—1780, 275—276, 508—509, One layman lawyer. F.2d, 428. 418. contemnors, would, modified statements proved persuasive. Galante, 298 72, 76 1962) (Friendly, J., concurring dissenting). Modification penalties common apologizes presents Parliament described May, Law, Privileges, Proceedings Usage (17th ed. 1964) 'When actual either as, witness prevaricates, gives false evidence refuses answer, proceeds once, offender, unless manifest contrition, contempt.' 133 (emphasis added).

Classification Label: 3