Craig v. Harney

• Citation: 91 L.Ed. 1546,67 S.Ct. 1249,331 U.S. 367
• Decision Date: 19 May 1947
• Docket Number: No. 241,241
• Parties: CRAIG et al. v. HARNEY
• Court: United States Supreme Court

331 U.S. 367

67 S.Ct. 1249

91 L.Ed. 1546

CRAIG et al.

v HARNEY.

No. 241.

Argued Jan. 9, 1947.

Decided May 19, 1947.

Mandate Conformed to Oct. 15, 1947.

See Tex.Cr.App., 204 S.W.2d 842.

Messrs. Ireland Graves, of Austin, Tex., and Marcellus G. Eckhardt, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for petitioners.

Mr. Jerry D'Unger, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners were adjudged guilty of constructive criminal contempt by the County Court of Neuces County, Texas, and sentenced to jail for three days. They sought to challenge the legality of their confinement by applying to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus.¹ That court by a divided vote denied the writ and remanded petitioners to the custody of the county sheriff. Ex parte Craig, Tex.Cr.App., 193 S.W.2d 178. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the problem and because the ruling of the Texas court raised doubts whether it conformed to the principles announced in Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192, 159 A.L.R. 1346, and Pennekamp v. State of Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 66 S.Ct. 1029.

Petitioners are a publisher, an editorial writer, and a news reporter of newspapers published in Corpus Christi, Texas. The County Court had before it a forcible detainer case, Jackson v. Mayes, whereby Jackson sought to regain possession from Mayes of a business building in Corpus Christi which Mayes (who was at the time in the armed services and whose affairs were being handled by an agent, one Burchard) claimed under a lease. That case turned on whether Mayes' lease was forfeited because of non-payment of rent. At the close of the testimony each side moved for an instructed verdict. The judge instructed the jury to return a verdict for Jackson. That was on May 26, 1945. The jury returned with a verdict for Mayes. The judge refused to accept it and again instructed the jury to return a verdict for Jackson. The jury returned a second time with a verdict for Mayes. Once more the judge refused to accept it and repeated his prior instruction. It being the evening of May 26th and the jury not having complied, the judge recessed the court until the morning of May 27th. Again the jury balked at returning the instructed verdict. But finally it complied, stating that it acted under coercion of the court and against its conscience.

On May 29th Mayes moved for a new trial. That motion was enied on J une 6th. On June 4th an officer of the County Court filed with that court a complaint charging petitioners with contempt by publication. The publications referred to were an editorial and news stories published on May 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31 in the newspapers with which petitioners are connected. We have set forth the relevant parts of the publications in the appendix to this opinion. Browning, the judge, who is a layman and who holds an elective office, was criticised for taking the case from the jury. That ruling was called 'arbitrary action' and a 'travesty on justice.' It was deplored that a layman, rather than a lawyer, sat as judge. Groups of local citizens were reported as petitioning the judge to grant Mayes a new trial and it was said that one group had labeled the judge's ruling as a 'gross miscarriage of justice.' It was also said that the judge's behavior had properly brought down 'the wrath of public opinion upon his head,' that the people were aroused because a service man 'seems to be getting a raw deal,' and that there was 'no way of knowing whether justice was done, because the first rule of justice, giving both sides an opportunity to be heard, was repudiated.' And the fact that there could be no appeal from the judge's ruling to a court 'familiar with proper procedure and able to interpret and weigh motion and arguments by opposing counsel' was deplored.

The trial judge concluded that the reports and editorials were designed falsely to represent to the public the nature of the proceedings and to prejudice and influence the court in its ruling on the motion for a new trial then pending. Petitioners contended at the hearing that all that was reported did no more than to create the same impression that would have been created upon the mind of an average intelligent layman who sat through the trial. They disclaimed any purpose to impute unworthy motives to the judge or to advise him how the case should be decided or to bring the court into disrepute. The purpose was to 'quicken the conscience of the judge' and to 'make him more careful in discharging his duty.'

The Court of Criminal Appeals, in denying the writ of habeas corpus, stated that the 'issue before us' is 'whether the publications * * * were reasonably calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice' in the pending case. 193 S.W.2d at page 186. It was held that 'there is no escape from the conclusion that it was the purpose and intent of the publishers * * * to force, compel, and coerce Judge Browning to grant Mayes a new trial. The only reason or motive for so doing was because the publishers did not agree with Judge Browning's decision or conduct of the case. According to their viewpoint, Judge Browning was wrong and they took it upon themselves to make him change his decision.' Id., 193 S.W.2d at pages 188, 189. The court went on to say that 'It is hard to conceive how the public press could have been more forcibly or substantially used or applied to make, force, and compel a judge to change a ruling or decision in a case pending before him than was here done.' Id., 193 S.W.2d at page 189. The court distinguished the Bridges case, noting that there the published statements carried threats of future adverse criticism and action on the part of the publisher if the pending matter was not disposed of in accordance with the views of the publisher, that the views of the publisher in the matter were already wellknown, and that the Bridges case was not private litigation but a suit in the outcome of which the public had an interest. Id., 193 S.W.2d at page 188. It concluded that the facts of this case satisfied the 'clear and present danger' rule of the Bridges case. That test was, in the view of the court, satisfied 'because the publications and their purpose were to impress upon Judge Browning (a) that unless he granted the motion for a new trial he would be subjected to suspicion as to his integrity and fairness and to odium and hatred in the publi mind; (b) that the safe and secure course to avoid the criticism of the press and public opinion would be to grant the motion and disqualify himself from again presiding at the trial of the case; and (c) that if he overruled the motion for a new trial, there would be produced in the public mind such a disregard for the court over which he presided as to give rise to a purpose in practice to refuse to respect and obey any order, judgment, or decree which he might render in conflict with the views of the public press.' Id., 193 S.W.2d at page 189.

The court's statement of the issue before it and the reasons it gave for holding that the 'clear and present danger' test was satisfied have a striking resemblance to the findings which the Court in Toledo Newspaper Co. v United States, 247 U.S. 402, 38 S.Ct. 560, 62 L.Ed. 1186 held adequate to sustain an adjudication of contempt by publication.² That case held that comment on a pending case in a federal court was punishable by contempt if it had a 'reasonable tendency' to obstruct the administration of justice. We revisited that case in Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 52, 61 S.Ct. 810, 817, 85 L.Ed. 1172, and disapproved it. And in Bridges v. State of California, supra, we held that the compulsion of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth (Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 891, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81) forbade the punishment by contempt for comment on pending cases in absence of a showing that the utterances created a 'clear and present danger' to the administration of justice. 314 U.S. at pages 260 264, 62 S.Ct. at pages 192—194, 86 L.Ed. 192, 159 A.L.R. 1346. We reaffirmed and reapplied that standard in Pennekamp v. State of Florida, supra, which also involved comment on matters pending before the court. We stated, 328 U.S. at page 347, 66 S.Ct. at page 1037: 'Courts must have power to protect the interests of prisoners and litigants before them from unseemly efforts to pervert judicial action. In the borderline instances where it is difficult to say upon which side the alleged offense falls, we think the specific freedom of public comment should weigh heavily against a possible tendency to influence pending cases. Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice.'

Neither those cases nor the present one raises questions concerning the full reach of the power of the state to protect the administration of justice by its courts. The problem presented is only a narrow, albeit important, phase of that problem—the power of a court promptly and without a jury trial to punish for comment on cases pending before it and awaiting disposition. The history of the power to punish for contempt (see Nye v. United States, supra; Bridges v. State of California, supra) and the unequivocal command of the First Amendment serve as constant reminders that freedom of speech and of the press should not be impaired through the exercise of that power, unless there is no doubt that the utterances in question are a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.

In a case where it is asserted that a person has been deprived by a State court of a fundamental right...