1

As far as I’m aware, contempt of court is the only crime for which the Constitutional rights about a crime (right to trial by jury, right to due process, etc.) doesn’t apply - for obvious reasons, the need for practicality. You can’t convene a separate trial for every single time a defendant says “fuck you” to the judge or gives the middle finger, otherwise a case could last forever.

But has the Supreme Court, or any federal court, ruled on this? It’s like the legal system is saying, “Yes, the Constitution grants you legal rights in all crime cases, except this crime.”

2

Its not really a “crime” in most cases. it’s not on any conviction or arrest record. Generally, ymmv, ianal. There are some exceptions in Federal courts- but then one is generally indicted and convicted, not just with a bang of the gavel.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-4-3/ALDE_00013522/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20repeatedly,attorneys%20who%20engage%20in%20misconduct.&text=See%20United%20Mine%20Workers%2C%20330%20U.S.%20at%20299.&text=18%20U.S.C.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess inherent authority to punish c**ontempt—i.e., disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice—and to impose other sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct.

The Court’s contempt decisions have often distinguished between criminal and civil contempt.1 Whether a contempt is civil or criminal can be of great importance. For instance, criminal contempt implicates procedural rights attendant to prosecutions, while civil contempt does not.2 In Ex parte Grossman, while holding that the President may pardon a criminal contempt, Chief Justice William Howard Taft noted in dicta that the pardon power did not extend to civil contempt.3 In Turner v. Rogers, the Court held that the Due Process Clause does not grant an indigent defendant a right to state-appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding.4 Notwithstanding the importance of distinguishing between the two types of contempt, there have been instances where defendants have been charged with both civil and criminal contempt for the same act.5

3

This is more complicated than your question implies. There are different types of contempt. Some do involve trials, some involve sanctions/jail until the person cures the contempt. And yes, there have been court cases explaining how the procedure must comply with due process.

4

TV notwithstanding, there typically ARE contempt of court hearings, called in my state “Show Cause” hearings. If you don’t show up for your subpoena, say, and don’t notify the court that you won’t be there, the judge may set a show cause hearing and send you another subpoena. The purpose of this hearing will be to explain why you weren’t at the last one. If the judge is not impressed with your excuse, they may find you guilty of contempt of court and (typically) fine you. I have known exactly one person thrown in jail for contempt like you see on TV, and he was an obnoxious lawyer who had repeatedly blown off appearances and stetched the judge’s patience beyond its limit. Even he posted bail and was out in a couple hours.

5

IMO these kind of things are “grandfathered in”, if contempt of court didn’t exist and a state passed a law tomorrow allowing a judge to throw someone in jail if they showed them contempt, then it would get struck down straight away as blatantly unconstitutional.

However as judges have always had that power even before the Constitution was written, while it’s been regulated over the years it still exists simply by inertia as it’s always been that way, and there’s never been to be political will to abolish it.

6

I’m not sure what you mean. The federal constitution requires due process for deprivation of liberty or property, including confinement and fines for contempt of court (civil or criminal). Other provisions can apply to contempt charges depending on the scenario.

If you say “fuck you” or flip the bird in the presence of the judge, there are no questions of fact to submit to a jury and therefore the jury is not necessary. You do have the right to have a jury find facts when there is a dispute in a criminal case, but if you clearly did something right in the middle of court, no lawyer is going to push for a jury. Lawyers are first and foremost officers of the court, and they represent your interests second. They are not there to dispute uncontroverted facts and can get in trouble for doing so.

What sometimes happens is you have a case where the defense team thinks the judge is out to get their client, and maybe some colorable claim that the judge denied the defendant due process in a contempt charge. What happens is the defense lawyers will move to have the contempt charge thrown out or tried by another judge, usually bundled with a request to have the whole trial done over with a new judge as well. Something like that happened with the Chicago Eight (where the one Black defendant, who did not have his lawyer, was held in contempt of court and involuntarily gagged and tied to his chair.)

~Max

7

The federal constitutional right to a jury trial only applies to cases where the term of confinement exceeds 6 months. (state constitutions will vary) Due process is always required, but what process is due is sometimes less than you might imagine. Generally, you would have a right to know what you’re being accused of, and the right to present your “defense.” (Some type of hearing). There is also summary contempt.

Here’s the law in Washington on that.

RCW 7.21.050

Sanctions—Summary imposition—Procedure.

(1) The judge presiding in an action or proceeding may summarily impose either a remedial or punitive sanction authorized by this chapter upon a person who commits a contempt of court within the courtroom if the judge certifies that he or she saw or heard the contempt. The judge shall impose the sanctions immediately after the contempt of court or at the end of the proceeding and only for the purpose of preserving order in the court and protecting the authority and dignity of the court. The person committing the contempt of court shall be given an opportunity to speak in mitigation of the contempt unless compelling circumstances demand otherwise. The order of contempt shall recite the facts, state the sanctions imposed, and be signed by the judge and entered on the record.

(2) A court, after a finding of contempt of court in a proceeding under subsection (1) of this section may impose for each separate contempt of court a punitive sanction of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, or a remedial sanction set forth in RCW 7.21.030(2). A forfeiture imposed as a remedial sanction under this subsection may not exceed more than five hundred dollars for each day the contempt continues.

8

Indeed, this distinction between serious/criminal (within the meaning of the 6th Amendment) and petty offense applies to contempt proceedings. See Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968) (right to jury trial for 12 months’ contempt sentence). Cf. Chef v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966) (no right to jury trial for 6 months’ contempt sentence).

~Max

9

But even then you don’t see this with other crimes.

For instance, suppose (extreme case) that someone in the courtroom pulls out a gun and shoots someone else in the room. Everyone sees it. It’s incontrovertible. Yet the judge doesn’t just bang the gavel and say, “All right, that’s life imprisonment (or lethal injection) for you.” There’s still a due process that lies ahead before that can be done.

But if someone in court says “fuck you” to the judge, the judge just bangs the gavel right away, “30 days behind bars for you.”

10

Murder is materially different than a charge of contempt of court. For example, there is a mens rea element that needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is undisputed that the defendant shot and killed the victim, that alone does not support a conviction for murder.

ETA: There is an intent requirement for criminal contempt as well, but that can usually be inferred based on conduct in the courtroom. If the sentence isn’t more than 6 months it isn’t a violation of due process for the judge to make this factual determination. Usually a judge will issue warnings before handing down contempt, and if the charge follows a good faith effort to comply with vague orders, an appeal can be made on due process grounds.

~Max

11

Also, this isn’t accurate. You have a procedural right to raise defenses to a charge of contempt, precisely because of due process. It’s hard to think of a viable defense for a “fuck you” unless you have some kind of weird mental condition, but in other situations you can bring up things like certified mail receipts, family emergencies, natural disasters, substantial compliance, or whatever other excuse hopefully absolves you of responsibility for contempt.

~Max

12

Here is a case you may want to read.

The district court summarily convicted the appellant of criminal contempt and imposed punishment of twelve months’ imprisonment after the appellant uttered a vulgarity directed to the court in open court. The appellant appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing the evidence is insufficient to find him guilty of contempt, the sentence is unreasonable in relation to his actions and, because the sentence exceeds six months, he is entitled to a jury trial. We affirm the contempt conviction but reduce the appellant’s sentence to six months’ imprisonment.

In re Sealed Case, 627 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

~Max

13

Judge: “Are you trying to show contempt for this court?”
Mae West: “On the contrary, Your Honor. I’m trying to hide it.”

14

Arguably, freedom of expression.