Courts have inherent powers to regulate a person’s conduct in court. Courts also maintain the power to compel the parties under its jurisdiction to take certain actions. These are essentially the contempt powers that a court has at its disposal.
The first example, the inherent power to regulate a person’s conduct in court, typically involves a person committing an outburst. Threatening the judge or disrupting the courtroom are “contemptuous” behaviors. If these matters occur in front of the judge, they are considered “direct contempt” and can be summarily punished at that time. “Indirect contempt” addresses contemptuous behaviors that occur outside the courtroom. For example, if a prosecutor is ordered by the Court to refrain from making statements to the press about an ongoing trial, the prosecutor's press conference that airs on all the major networks is an indirect criminal contempt, even if the judge was watching it on television. An indirect criminal contempt charge is a criminal charge.
But, could a court order a person on probation to refrain from drinking alcohol and hold that person in contempt as a separate criminal offense when the probationer drinks alcohol? Probably not. It is a probation violation, but there is a good argument to be made that criminal penalties cannot be increased as a result of the probationer's failure to refrain from engaging in prohibited conduct.
The courts also have the power to compel parties to act. The best example of this occurs when a court issues an injunction. An injunction might prevent a construction company from demolishing a building. Yet another example is jailing a person who refuses to testify or turn over records. These parties are said to “hold the keys to their own prison.” At any time, the party may agree to testify or turn over records, and that person is entitled to be released from jail.
Given the nature of his practice, William Maze has defended several cases involving contempt of court. A few, rare judges have taken issue with Mr. Maze’s aggressive defense of drunk driving cases, responding by instituting contempt proceedings against him. (In a case that remains on appeal, Mr. Maze was sanctioned by a court for seeking discovery in drunk driving cases, an absurd ruling.) In other instances, courts have pursued clients for violating probationary terms. And in a third category, Mr. Maze has represented other lawyers charged with contempt of court.
Currently, a number of courts are using contempt powers to punish minors who have been placed on probation for minor in possession of alcohol cases (MIPs). Minors cannot be placed on probation for a first offense alcohol possession charge. This means that the courts cannot increase the punishment by circumventing it through contempt powers. The lower court rulings have been repeatedly struck down by the higher courts, but many continue to employ this dubious practice.
For an exhaustive overview of the subject, the Michigan Judicial Institute has produced a fantastic benchbook for judges on contempt of court.
Mr. Maze has a great deal of practice in contempt proceedings. If you find yourself charged with contempt of court, call our offices to discuss your case today.