United States v. Woods, 16070.

Citation382 F.2d 557
Decision Date03 August 1967
Docket NumberNo. 16070.,16070.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Sam DE STEFANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph I. WOODS, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Anna R. Lavin, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

John J. Stamos, First Asst. State's Atty., Thomas A. Hett, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, Ill., for appellee, Elmer C. Kissane, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Sam De Stefano, petitioner, appeals from an order of the district court entered January 31, 1967, dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as amended, against Joseph I. Woods, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, respondent. The case was disposed of by the court on the pleadings.

Petitioner was placed in the custody of respondent pursuant to a final order of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, People v. De Stefano, 64 Ill. App.2d 368, 212 N.E.2d 368 (1965), cert. denied 385 U.S. 989, 87 S.Ct. 594, 17 L. Ed.2d 450. In three orders defendant had been found guilty of direct criminal contempts of court under the laws of Illinois for his conduct in open court during the trial of a criminal case against him,1 in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

As revealed by the opinion of the Appellate Court, the conduct of defendant was appraised by that court, at 387-388, 212 N.E.2d at 379:

"We find the instant contempt orders recite flagrant misconduct, disrespect and open defiance of the court\'s authority, continued in the face of repeated warnings and findings of contempt during the trial. These contempts clearly embarrassed the court, disrupted and defeated the prompt and fair administration of justice. No court should permit such gross, deliberate and blatant disrespect for the court to go unpunished, whether by a lawyer or by a layman acting pro se in his own defense. Our courts could not long endure under such circumstances. * * *"

For his acts of contempt of court, defendant was sentenced to three concurrent one-year sentences in the county jail and, in addition, to one of the sentences a $2,000 fine was added. This punishment was imposed at the close of the jury trial.

1. In this court petitioner's counsel attacks on federal constitutional grounds the sentences imposed for contempt.

The attack upon these sentences is based upon the contention that their imposition violated the federal constitution, citing article III § 2, that "The Trial of all Crimes * * * shall be by Jury; * * *", as well as the sixth amendment to the constitution. Reliance is also placed on Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966).

Respondent's counsel point out, however, that nothing said in Cheff indicates an intent to repudiate Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 78 S.Ct. 632, 2 L.Ed.2d 672 (1958). In Green, at 183, 78 S.Ct. at 642, the court considered petitioner's constitutional arguments in that case, saying:

"* * * The claim is that proceedings for criminal contempts, if contempts are subject to prison terms of more than one year, must be based on grand jury indictments under the clause of the Fifth Amendment providing: `No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury * * *.\' (Italics added.) Since an `infamous crime\' within the meaning of the Amendment is one punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary, Mackin v. United States, 117 U.S. 348 6 S.Ct. 777, 29 L.Ed. 909, and since imprisonment in a penitentiary can be imposed only if a crime is subject to imprisonment exceeding one year, 18 U.S.C. § 4083, petitioners assert that criminal contempts if subject to such punishment are infamous crimes under the Amendment.
"But this assertion cannot be considered in isolation from the general status of contempts under the Constitution, whether subject to `infamous\' punishment or not. The statements of this Court in a long and unbroken line of decisions involving contempts ranging from misbehavior in court to disobedience of court orders establish beyond peradventure that criminal contempts are not subject to jury trial as a matter of constitutional right. * * * Italics supplied."

Green was expressly followed in United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, at 692, 84 S.Ct. 984, 990, 12 L.Ed.2d 23 (1964), where the court said:

"Finally, it is urged that those charged with criminal contempt have a constitutional right to a jury trial. This claim has been made and rejected here again and again. Only six years ago we held a full review of the issue in Green v. United States, * * *. It has always been the law of the land, both state and federal, that the courts — except where specifically precluded by statute — have the power to proceed summarily in contempt matters. * * * Italics supplied."

While we believe that the United States Supreme Court has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sims v. Lane, 17193.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 23, 1969
    ...of racial persecution, but that is not "reasonable ground for believing the defendant to be insane." See United States ex rel. De Stefano v. Woods, 382 F.2d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1967), affirmed on other grounds, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308. If hypersensitivity to discriminati......
  • People v. Sheahan, 2-85-0317
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 12, 1986
    ...v. United States (1963), 375 U.S. 29, 30, 84 S.Ct. 19, 20, 11 L.Ed.2d 1, 2; United States ex rel. DeStefano v. Woods (7th Cir.1967), 382 F.2d 557, 559, aff'd (1968), 392 U.S. 631, 88 S.Ct. 2093, 20 L.Ed.2d 1308 (where contemptuous conduct did not reveal any aspects of incompetence, no sanit......
  • Petersen v. ALAMEDA WEST LAGOON HOME OWNERS'ASS'N, 21438.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 6, 1967
    ......No. 21438. United" States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. September 6, 1967.382 F.2d 556  \xC2"......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT