Supreme Court of the United States
Sacher v. United States
March 10, 1952343 U.S. 1
Summary
The Court affirmed the criminal-contempt convictions and sentences of defense lawyers whose prolonged, disruptive courtroom conduct occurred in the trial judge's presence. It held that Rule 42(a) permits a judge to defer summary contempt proceedings until the trial ends when immediate punishment would be imprudent or prejudicial, without losing authority to act summarily. The Court also held that the non-presence conspiracy allegation was separable and unnecessary to sustain the remaining contempt convictions. Justices Frankfurter, Black, and Douglas dissented, concluding that another judge should have heard the charges and, in Black's view, that a jury trial was constitutionally required.
Holding
- Timing of summary contempt punishment. Rule 42(a) permits a trial judge to defer summary contempt adjudication until completion of the trial when the judge believes that immediate action would be imprudent or prejudicial; the power to punish summarily is not extinguished by the delay.
- Effect of the non-presence agreement or conspiracy allegation. The allegation that the lawyers acted pursuant to an agreement not made in the judge's presence did not invalidate the remaining summary contempt convictions because the challenged specification was separable and the substantive contempt offenses independently sustained the judgment.
- Personal contempt directed at the accusing judge. Rule 42(a) does not categorically prohibit a judge from summarily punishing contempt committed in the judge's presence merely because the conduct also affronted the judge's personal dignity or authority.
Docket 201
Cited authorities
- 18 U.S.C. § 402
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 401
- 18 U.S.C. § 401
- 18 U.S.C. § 402