Court Opinion

ID: 9699334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:19:51.512774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:48.822783
License: Public Domain

*525Per Curiam.
We adhere to our decision in Catena v. Seidl, 68 N. J. 224 (1975) being satisfied that the principles and standards set forth therein for dealing with a recalcitrant civil eontemnor, such as is here involved, are correct and adequate. Applying these principles and standards, and making our own evaluation of the evidence, we agree fully with the trial judge’s findings and conclusions which he summarized thusly:
This man has spent six years in jail. He demonstrates to the Court a resignation to spend whatever time is necessary, whether it be the end of the term of the Commission or the end of his life, to spend that time in that same debilitating, do-nothing routine. I can only conclude that he is never going to change his mind. Enough is enough. I am satisfied that he has borne the necessary burden of proof even though it is only his own testimony. I think the inferences that the Court has drawn from previous conduct and his present resignation to his incarcerated status clearly demonstrates that there is no substantial likelihood that he will ever change his mind. The contempt citation is discharged.
We note that there is pending in the New Jersey Legislature a proposed amendment to the State Commission of Investigation Act which, inter alia, provides that in the case of a witness cited for contempt for refusal to answer, subsequent to a grant of immunity, no incarceration for civil contempt shall exceed a period of five years of actual incarceration.
Affirmed.