http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/contempt/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_52/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_4/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_110/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_67/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_5615/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_200/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_100/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_6/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_787/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_498/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_513/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_5485/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_164/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_689/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_121/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_37/ <p>Did the Court of Appeals misinterpret the Constitution's due process requirements as applied to an attorney's summary contempt conviction for willful defiance when questioning her client?</p><p>Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Court of Appeals had misinterpreted the Constitution's due process requirements for the imposition of a summary contempt order. The Court reasoned that the trial judge's findings concerning jury prejudice, together with the judge's assessment of the flagrance of Watson's defiance, supported the finding of the need for summary contempt to vindicate the court's authority. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissented. Justice Stevens argued that it was not so clear whether the circumstances justified a summary contempt proceeding by the judge before whom the contempt had occurred as to justify the Court's summary reversal.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_1383/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_412/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_167/ <p>Were the fines assessed against the United Mine Workers of America union, amounting to more than $64 million, criminal or civil in nature?</p><p>The fines were criminal in nature. The Supreme Court unanimously held that they had been intended to punish the union, not merely to maintain order or respect for the judiciary, and that the union was therefore entitled to the heightened protections of a criminal proceeding, such as a jury trial. Justice Harry Blackmun in the opinion of the Court, wrote, "The union's sanctionable conduct did not not occur in the court's presence or otherwise implicate the court's ability to maintain order and adjudicate the proceedings before it. ... Instead, the Virginia trial court levied contempt fines for widespread, ongoing, out-of-court violations of a complex injunction. In so doing, the court effectively policed petitioner's compliance with an entire code of conduct that the court itself had imposed. ... Under such circumstances, disinterested factfinding and evenhanded adjudication were essential, and petitioners were entitled to a criminal jury trial."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1625/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_107/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1162/ <p>Did the injunction violate the First Amendment?</p><p>The Court upheld the arrests since Walker failed to use proper judicial procedures to test the injunction's validity. Even though, Justice Stewart admitted, the injunction seemed broad and vague, and the marchers may not have enjoyed due process when applying for the permit originally, simply disobeying the injunction was illegitimate as "no man can be judge in his own case . . . however righteous his motives."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_249/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_2/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1329/