Supreme Court of the United States

Green v. United States

March 31, 1958356 U.S. 165

Summary

The Court held that federal district courts may punish, as criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3), a defendant's willful disobedience of a lawful surrender order, and that the evidence supported petitioners' convictions. It further held that criminal contempt sentences may exceed one year, that such proceedings need not be initiated by grand-jury indictment or tried to a jury, and that the three-year sentences were not an abuse of discretion. Justice Black, dissenting, would have required indictment and jury trial for punitive contempt, while Justice Brennan, dissenting, would have found the evidence insufficient to prove actual knowledge of the order; Justice Frankfurter concurred in defending the established summary-contempt procedure.

Holding

  • Authority to punish disobedience of a surrender order. Section 401 (3) authorizes a federal district court to punish as criminal contempt a defendant's willful disobedience of a lawful order requiring surrender after affirmance of a criminal judgment.
  • Sufficiency of evidence of knowing disobedience. The evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to support the findings that Green and Winston knowingly violated the surrender order.
  • Authority to impose more than one year of imprisonment for criminal contempt. Section 401 does not limit federal criminal-contempt imprisonment to one year; the term of imprisonment is within the district court's statutory discretion, subject to appellate supervision against abuse.
  • Grand-jury indictment and jury-trial rights in criminal contempt. Criminal contempt punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year need not be prosecuted by grand-jury indictment and is not subject to a constitutional right to trial by jury under Article III, the Fifth Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment.
  • Excessiveness of the three-year contempt sentences. The three-year sentences were within the reasonable exercise of the district court's discretion and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Docket 100

Cited authorities

Read full opinionPDF