Codispoti v. Pennsylvania
1974 U.S. LEXIS 90, 418 U.S. 506, 41 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a judge adjudicates multiple criminal contempt charges in a single proceeding after the conclusion of the trial in which they occurred, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial if the aggregate of the consecutive sentences imposed exceeds six months.
Facts:
- In December 1966, Dominick Codispoti and Herbert Langnes were defendants in a criminal trial and acted as their own counsel.
- During the trial, Codispoti engaged in seven separate acts which the trial judge considered contemptuous, such as accusing the court of misconduct and calling the judge 'Caesar'.
- In the same trial, Langnes engaged in six separate acts the judge found contemptuous, including threatening the judge's life on multiple occasions.
- The trial judge did not convict or sentence Codispoti or Langnes for these acts as they occurred.
- Instead, the judge waited until the conclusion of the trial to pronounce them guilty of contempt for all the separate acts.
Procedural Posture:
- Following a 1966 criminal trial, the trial judge found Dominick Codispoti guilty of seven contempts and Herbert Langnes guilty of six contempts, imposing sentences of 7-14 years and 6-12 years, respectively.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the contempt convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in a companion case (Mayberry v. Pennsylvania), vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on the contempt charges before a different judge.
- On remand, Codispoti and Langnes were retried in separate proceedings before a new judge in a Pennsylvania state trial court.
- The new judge denied the petitioners' requests for a jury trial.
- Following the bench trials, the judge found Codispoti guilty and imposed consecutive sentences totaling three years and three months.
- The judge found Langnes guilty and imposed consecutive sentences totaling two years and eight months.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court, affirmed the new convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether petitioners were entitled to a jury trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment require a jury trial when a defendant is tried in a single post-trial proceeding for multiple acts of criminal contempt, and the consecutively imposed sentences, while individually six months or less, aggregate to a term of more than six months?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the Sixth Amendment requires a jury trial in these circumstances. When a judge postpones conviction and punishment for multiple contempts until after trial, there is no overriding necessity for immediate action that would justify dispensing with due process. In such a post-trial proceeding, the contempts are tried together, and the aggregate sentence imposed determines the seriousness of the offense. Because the aggregated consecutive sentences for each petitioner exceeded six months, the offense was serious, and they were entitled to a jury trial under the principles established in Duncan v. Louisiana and Bloom v. Illinois.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes, the defendants were entitled to a jury trial. However, the majority is wrong to suggest that a judge could avoid the jury trial requirement by imposing an unlimited number of consecutive six-month sentences summarily during the trial. If multiple contemptuous acts arise from a single course of conduct, they should be treated as a single serious offense requiring a jury trial, regardless of whether the judge punishes them as they occur or at the end of trial. Other methods, such as removing the defendant from the courtroom, are more effective and appropriate for maintaining order.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No, a jury trial is not required. The contempts here were direct, in-court contempts, with all facts fully preserved on the trial record. There is no fact-finding role for a jury to perform, distinguishing this case from Bloom, which involved an out-of-court contempt. The requirement that a different judge preside over the contempt hearing is sufficient to protect against bias and ensure fairness, making a jury superfluous.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, a jury trial should not be required. The Court's decision emasculates the historic power of a trial judge to control the courtroom. The petitioners' original trial occurred before the decisions in Duncan and Bloom, and under the retroactivity principles of Jenkins v. Delaware, they should not receive the benefit of those cases on retrial. Furthermore, in a direct contempt case where the facts are undisputed, the jury serves no meaningful purpose since it cannot influence the sentence, making it a judicial 'fifth wheel' engrafted onto traditional procedures.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in the context of multiple criminal contempts. It establishes that courts must look to the aggregate sentence imposed in a single, post-trial proceeding to determine if an offense is 'serious.' This prevents judges from circumventing the jury trial right by fragmenting what is effectively a serious offense into multiple 'petty' offenses with consecutive sentences. The decision reinforces the jury's role as a check against the potential for arbitrary judicial power, especially in contempt cases where a judge's personal temperament may be involved.
