Supreme Court of the United States
Levine v. United States
May 23, 1960362 U.S. 610
Summary
The Court affirmed Levine's criminal-contempt conviction and one-year sentence arising from his refusal to answer immunized grand-jury questions. It held that due process generally requires appropriate regard for public proceedings in criminal-contempt adjudications, but the courtroom's continued closure did not deny due process because Levine had counsel, received notice, and never requested that the courtroom be opened before the contempt adjudication and sentence. The Court also held that the Sixth Amendment's public-trial guarantee does not directly govern criminal-contempt proceedings. Justice Black, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Douglas, and Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented, contending that the secret contempt trial violated constitutional public-trial protections and that no valid waiver occurred.
Holding
- Use of summary-contempt procedure. After Levine disobeyed the court's direction to answer the grand jury's questions, the court could put the questions directly to him in the judge's presence and summarily punish his renewed refusal as contempt committed in the actual presence of the court.
- Due-process requirement of public proceedings in criminal contempt. Due process requires appropriate regard for the public nature of judicial proceedings in criminal-contempt cases, but Levine was not denied due process because the grand-jury record had to be read privately, his counsel was present and fully active, he had notice of the intended summary adjudication, and he never requested that the courtroom be opened before the final stage.
- Applicability of the Sixth Amendment public-trial guarantee. Criminal-contempt proceedings are not within the Sixth Amendment's category of "all criminal prosecutions," so the public-trial protection in this case derives from the Due Process Clause rather than directly from the Sixth Amendment.
Docket 164
Cited authorities
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
- Rule 42
Cited by
- Commonwealth v. Jason Patry
- Cecil Laroy Robinson v. State of Maryland
- Michael Wayne Parson, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee
- United States of America, Appellee v. Anthony Bucci and David A. Jordan, Defendants, Appellants
- United States of America, Appellee v. Lenard Christi, Defendant, Appellant
- State of Maine v. Andre E. Beaudoin
- United States of America, Appellee v. Juan M. Laureano-Pérez, Jeffrey John Cummings-Ávila, and Christopher L…
- United States v. José David Acosta-Colón, A/k/a David Jorge Fournier-Olavarría, A/k/a Mesón Fernando L…