In re Oliver

Supreme Court of United States
333 U.S. 257 (1948)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a person charged with contempt of court be given a public trial, reasonable notice of the charge, and a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves, including the right to counsel and to present evidence.

Facts:

A Michigan circuit judge, acting as a statutory 'one-man grand jury,' conducted a secret investigation into alleged gambling and corruption.
William D. Oliver was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in this secret proceeding.
During the testimony, the judge-grand jury accused Oliver of giving 'false and evasive' answers.
The judge's belief that Oliver was lying was based in part on the secret testimony of another witness, whom Oliver was not given the opportunity to confront.
Immediately and while still in the secret session, the judge-grand jury charged Oliver with contempt of court.
The judge-grand jury then convicted Oliver of contempt and sentenced him to sixty days in jail.
Oliver was immediately imprisoned without being afforded an opportunity to secure counsel, prepare a defense, cross-examine other witnesses, or call witnesses on his own behalf.

Procedural Posture:

A Michigan circuit judge, sitting as a 'one-man grand jury,' summarily convicted William D. Oliver of contempt of court and sentenced him to jail.
Oliver filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Michigan.
The judge-grand jury filed an answer in the state supreme court which included only partial excerpts of Oliver's testimony.
The Supreme Court of Michigan denied Oliver's motion to require the judge to produce the complete transcript of the secret proceeding.
The Supreme Court of Michigan denied the petition for habeas corpus, affirming the conviction.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.

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 a state's procedure, which allows a single judge acting as a 'one-man grand jury' to summarily convict and sentence a witness for contempt in a secret proceeding without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Black

No. The state's procedure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A person accused of a crime is entitled to a public trial and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The historical Anglo-American distrust of secret trials requires that, at a minimum, an accused cannot be tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison when everyone, including friends, relatives, and counsel, is excluded. Furthermore, the right to due process includes reasonable notice of a charge and an opportunity to be heard, which encompasses the right to counsel, to examine witnesses, and to offer testimony. The narrow exception for summary contempt punishment is reserved for misconduct that occurs in open court, is personally witnessed by the judge, and directly obstructs the administration of justice, none of which applied here as the proceedings were secret and the judge relied on outside information.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Rutledge

No. The procedure is unconstitutional because the Michigan one-man grand jury system itself is a violation of due process. This system improperly combines the historically separate powers of grand jury, prosecutor, trial judge, and petit jury into a single official. This aggregation of power is entirely at odds with the American system of government and inherently denies an accused the fundamental protections of the Sixth Amendment, such as the rights to a public trial, to be informed of the accusation, to confront witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. Such a system cannot stand when used to deprive a person of their liberty.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson

The dissent does not reach the merits of the issue, arguing the case should be remanded. The majority improperly decides the case on the ground of a secret trial, an issue that was not raised by the petitioner in the state courts or in the petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Because the state has not had an opportunity to address this specific constitutional challenge, the proper judicial course is to remand the case to the Supreme Court of Michigan for its consideration of the issue, rather than deciding a major constitutional question that has not been properly litigated.

Analysis:

This landmark decision incorporated the Sixth Amendment's public trial guarantee into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, making it applicable to the states. It significantly curtailed the scope of the summary contempt power, clarifying that it applies only to direct contempt committed in open court that requires immediate action to preserve order. The ruling invalidated secret inquisitorial-punitive proceedings like Michigan's, establishing a strong precedent that even proceedings for contempt must adhere to fundamental constitutional safeguards of notice, a public hearing, and an opportunity to mount a defense.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In re Oliver (1948)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature