Constitutional Law-Labor Law-Jury Trial for Criminal Contempt-18 U.S.C.

An injunction has issued in an industrial dispute.It is charged that it has been violated.If the judge himself assumes to determine whether it has been or has not been, he can scarcely hope to make a decision that will not subject him to the charge, if he finds the prisoner guilty, of subserviency to the capitalistic interests or hostility to organized labor, or if he shall acquit, to pusillanimity or the ambition of the demagogue.In either case his court suffers in the estimation of no inconsiderable body of citizens.How much wiser it would be to call in a jury ... .The right to a jury trial 2 in a criminal contempt 3 proceeding 4 51 CONG.REC.14,369 (1914) (remarks of Senator Walsh during debate on the Clayton Act).2 The history of the jury trial in the United States was briefly outlined in Duncan v.Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 151-57 (1968).a Contempt can be generally defined as an act of disobedience or disrespect toward a judicial or legislative body of government, or interference with its orderly process, for which a summary punishment is usually exacted.In a broader, more general view, it is a power assumed by governmental bodies to coerce cooperation, and punish criticism or interference even of a causally indirect nature .... R. GOLDFARB, THE CONTEMPT POWER 1 (1963).Contempt is in turn subdivided and classified by the courts and legal scholars into categories such as civil and criminal, direct and indirect, and constructive.See id. at 46-85; Dobbs, Contempt of Court: A Survey, 56 CORNELL L. REV.183, 221-30, 235-49 (1971).These classifications have significance to the contemnor because they determine the punishment that he receives.Id. at 241-45.Many of the criminal procedural safeguards apply to criminal contempt, so it is an especially important classification.See, e.g., Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968) (recognizing right to jury trial if contempt is serious); In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50 (1943) (no double jeopardy); Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537 (1925) (appropriate notice of the charges); Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444 (1911) (recognizing right not to testify against oneself and presumption of innocence).It is almost impossible to explain criminal contempt without reference to civil contempt by way of contrast.The Supreme Court set forth the distinctions in Gompers:Contempts are neither wholly civil nor altogether criminal.And "it may not always be easy to classify a particular act as belonging to either one of these two classes.It may partake of the characteristics of both." . . .It is not the fact of punishment but rather its character and purpose that often serve to distinguish between the two classes of cases.If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant.But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.221 U.S. at 441, quoting Bessett v. W.B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 329 (1904).This distinction, based on the purpose for which the sentence is imposed, is the basic distinction upon which most scholars and courts agree.Dobbs, supra, at 235-49.One author argues, however, that it is impossible to predict the classification in which a court will place a given contempt.R. GOLDFARB, supra, at 66-67.For a discussion of contempt including its history, see J. Fox, CONTEMPT OF COURT ' See Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 183 n.14, 191 n.2 (1958).6 Id. at 183. 7 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (1970) (right to jury where contempt act constitutes separate crime under state or federal law); 29 U.S.C. § 528 (1970) (right to jury in cases, including contempt, arising under Landrum-Griffin Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1995 (1970) (right to jury in certain contempt cases arising under Civil Rights Act of 1957); 42 U.S.C. § 2000(h) (1970) (right to jury in certain contempt cases arising under 1964 Civil Rights Act); 45 U.S.C. § 439 (1970) (right to jury in contempt cases arising from violation of injunction or restraining order issued under 45 U.S.C. § 436 (1970)).8 391 U.S. 194 (1968).9 Id. at 211.Although Bloom was the first case to state expressly that there is such a right, two earlier decisions had foreshadowed this holding.See 391 U.S. at 196-97; Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 380 (1966); United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 694-95 & n.12 (1964).10 See note 65 infra.11 See notes 65-74 and accompanying text infra.12 422 U.S. 454 (1975).13 29 U.S.C. § 160(l) (1970).14 This was actually the second injunction arising out of the dispute; the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board obtained the first pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(l) (1970), after a newspaper filed an unfair labor practice charge related to picketing.