Case brief
United States of America v. Chokwe Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1984)
FACTS: During a criminal trial, Chokwe Lumumba, an attorney, several times insulted Judge Duffy and showed disrespectful behavior in court. He was cited for the first time for criminal contempt during jury selection. The second contempt citation was issued outside the presence of the jury. Judge Duffy summarily convicted Lumumba of criminal contempt for these two events at the end of the trial. Judge Sweet made decision about punishment of Lumumba for criminal contempt. He refused to review the conviction itself and sentenced Lumumba to three years’ probation without any consideration of Lumumba’s arguments.
ISSUE: Had Lumumba a notice and an opportunity to
…show more content…
The appellant did not have these process rights guaranteed by the Constitution, therefore, the judgment must be reversed.
RULE: Lawyer cited for criminal contempt for conduct occurring during trial must have a notice and an opportunity to be heard before being finally adjudicated in contempt at the end of the trial.
ANALYSIS: If contempt was committed without presence of the court, and the court’s knowledge about the actual facts is uncertain, the accused shall be advised with charges and have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, contempts committed in the presence of court can be instantly punished without proof or examination. The main reason for such violation of basic process rights to proper defense is an immediate necessity to keep order and to uphold a court’s authority. Where the punishment is established later on the other day, the accused must have a chance for defense during a fair hearing.
In this case there is a mixture of these two rules. Judge Duffy held Lumumba in criminal contempt, but did not punish him at the moment. He believed that immediate punishment is unnecessary, it may impede the trial and infringe the defendant's rights. Therefore, the main reason for the exception that denies due process is