CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-PUNISHMENT FOR DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT

Authors

William R. Worth, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Opposing counsel's objection to material in petitioner's opening statement to the jury was sustained. When petitioner rephrased his statement, the trial court, feeling that he was still trying to get inadmissible material before the jury, threatened to "declare a mistrial if you mess with me two minutes and a half, and fine you besides.'' Petitioner took an exception to the conduct of the court, and was immediately fined $25. His protests led to successive increases in penalty, culminating in a $100 fine and three days in jail. The Supreme Court of Texas denied habeas corpus on the ground that the evidence supported the judgment of the trial court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Held, affirmed, four justices dissenting. Since the acts charged constituted direct contempt, petitioner was not deprived of his liberty without due process of law. Fisher v. Pace, (U.S. 1949) 69S.Ct.425.

Recommended Citation

William R. Worth, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-PUNISHMENT FOR DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 1218 (1949).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss8/17