ipl-logo

The Case Of US V. Chokwe Lumumba

491 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Term paper, Effective decision making in criminal justice orginations

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

Show More
Related
344 Words | 2 Pages

The case of R. V. Askov began in November 1983 when Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion against Peter Belmont. On top of Extortion they had multiple existing firearm charges to which they severed 6 months in prison for these offences, and were initially denied bail until May 7th, 1984. After being released, their preliminary hearing for the extortion charge was set in early July 1984. The hearing wasn’t completed until September 1984. The actual trial was then set for the first date available, in October 1985, but in turn got delayed until September 1986 2 years later.

Read More
963 Words | 4 Pages

Originating in the Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), involved a Wisconsin State Agency (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, this case was ruled in a liberal direction and concluded that the earlier decision is affirmed (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Case factors include violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the need for counsel at a revocation hearing (Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Moreover, in this case, the court held that parolees do have a limited right to counsel in revocation proceedings (Latessa & Smith, 2015). Furthermore, that the body must determine on a case-by-case basis whether counsel should be afforded, as counsel may not always be granted (Latessa & Smith, 2015).

Read More
514 Words | 3 Pages

The decision by the District Judge came just before a contempt of court hearing was to be heard. In the case, Joe Arpaio was accused of ignoring summons given by a Judge. Two prominent newsmen and civil rights activist Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin joined the voices of those disenchanted by the Judge’s

Read More
1013 Words | 5 Pages

Mr. Haselton was writing this document because the defendants were appealing the court

Read More
928 Words | 4 Pages

This Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Whether Mother Should Have Been Held In Contempt. Father avers that the circuit court erred in failing to hold Mother in contempt. Indeed, Father asserts that “[Mother’s] conduct warranted a finding of contempt, and it was erroneous for the trial court to rule otherwise.” The scope of our review of the trial court’s failure to find Father in contempt is as follows: (a) Scope of review. –Any person may appeal

Read More
851 Words | 4 Pages

In the south back in the 1930’s there were many Americans who did not know the meaning of equality for all. With this being the case, many black people faced discrimination daily and it followed through to the legal systems especially in the south where both being compared took place. The evidence provided in both trials proved to be weak. Despite this, both defendants had determined lawyers who believed in justice.

Read More
1189 Words | 5 Pages

From a well educated background, his qualifications verify his interpretation to Martin Guerre’s case. Not only was he present for the trial, he was one of the ten judges overseeing the case. He was also a skilled lawyer and professor at a university. He

Read More
1059 Words | 5 Pages

The topic of equality among all Americans has been debated for hundreds of years. In 1892 the landmark case of Plessy v Ferguson made the Supreme Court. A major precedent was set in this case that would be used for many years to come. This precedent would continue to be abided by for around six decades. However before all of that happened in 1890 a monumental statue was passed by the state of Louisiana.

Read More
1043 Words | 5 Pages

The handling of this case from beginning to end all point to gross fundamental and Constitutional violations of due

Read More
1036 Words | 5 Pages

Bench warrants, which are sometimes referred to as body attachments, are among the most common types of warrants issued. The basic bench warrant legal definition covers warrants that were issued by a judge, that is from the bench. Unlike the typical arrest warrant, therefore, bench warrants are not issued based on suspected criminal activity. Instead, the judge will issue them for failure to appear in court, to pay a fine and/or obey other court orders. When you do any of the above, you will be considered to be in contempt of court and you will be subject to a bench warrant.

Read More
369 Words | 2 Pages

Darnay is the accused man of three trials through the course of the book. The first is in the beginning. He is accused of treason. The other two are at the very end. The second trial, he is arrested for being an emigrant.

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Miranda Vs. Arizona On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home in Phoenix, Arizona in regards to a rape and kidnapping. After a two hour interrogation, the police had finally gained a confession from Ernesto.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.

Read More
1000 Words | 4 Pages

Bailiff: “All rise. Department one of the superior court is now in session. Please be seated.” Judge: “Good morning ladies and gentlemen, calling the case of King Duncan’s murder versus Macbeth. Are both sides ready?”

Read More
790 Words | 4 Pages

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It manifests itself in wilful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behaviour that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court. Basically, contempt of court means disobeying court of law and its decision in bringing justice.

Read More

More about The Case Of US V. Chokwe Lumumba

Related Topics

Open Document