Help me understand this courtroom detail from the Chicago Seven trial
July 27, 2024 1:39 PM Subscribe
The Chicago Seven, and most of their lawyers, were given long jail sentences for contempt of court in a unilateral decision by the judge. This wasn't the "I'll hold you in contempt until you agree to testify" procedural thing that I'm used to seeing on cop shows — the sentences didn't start until the trial was over, and it sounds like they were purely punitive. One sentence was over four years. I'm sure I'm being naïve here, but... why was that legal?
The maximum punishment allowed to given down by a judge for contempt of court is indefinite detention. Sometimes the decision gets reversed by someone else like the Real Dan said, but there is nothing “illegal” about a judge locking someone up and throwing away the key for contempt.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 4:07 PM on July 27, 2024
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 4:07 PM on July 27, 2024
Best answer: With the caveat that I am basing this just off of quickly reading the legal opinions I'm citing here...
It wasn't legal -- the decision was appealed and overturned. The relevant legal opinions are In re Dellinger and In re Seale at the appellate court. Those opinions are based on the 1968 SCOTUS opinion Bloom v. Illinois, which held that serious sentences for criminal contempt come with the right to a jury trial on the charge.
The statement that "there is nothing “illegal” about a judge locking someone up and throwing away the key for contempt" is incorrect under Bloom, which I don't believe has been overturned (but again, this is not my practice area). Locking up and throwing away the key would trigger jury trial protections.
Further, the Wikipedia article states that all of the defendants were released from jail after 14 days (February 14, 1970 - February 28, 1970), so the long sentences were not actually imposed.
posted by moosetracks at 4:14 PM on July 27, 2024 [10 favorites]
It wasn't legal -- the decision was appealed and overturned. The relevant legal opinions are In re Dellinger and In re Seale at the appellate court. Those opinions are based on the 1968 SCOTUS opinion Bloom v. Illinois, which held that serious sentences for criminal contempt come with the right to a jury trial on the charge.
The statement that "there is nothing “illegal” about a judge locking someone up and throwing away the key for contempt" is incorrect under Bloom, which I don't believe has been overturned (but again, this is not my practice area). Locking up and throwing away the key would trigger jury trial protections.
Further, the Wikipedia article states that all of the defendants were released from jail after 14 days (February 14, 1970 - February 28, 1970), so the long sentences were not actually imposed.
posted by moosetracks at 4:14 PM on July 27, 2024 [10 favorites]
Yes, moosetracks has it right. The Chicago Seven trial is infamous for terrible judicial decisions by Judge Hoffman that were largely overturned on appeal. That means his orders were determined not to be legal. Things are not legal merely because a trial judge or prosecutor does them. A trial judge cannot lock someone up for contempt for any significant duration without at least one round of appellate review.
posted by Mid at 7:02 AM on July 28, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Mid at 7:02 AM on July 28, 2024 [1 favorite]
« Older POAs and campaign contributions | Modifying a construction helmet sunshade to fit... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
"On May 11, 1972, the panel dismissed some contempt charges against the lawyers, and reversed all of the other contempt convictions for retrial with a different judge. ...
On November 21, 1972, all of the criminal convictions were reversed by the panel. The majority opinion of the court unanimously found several errors by Judge Hoffman and censured Judge Hoffman and the prosecutors for their conduct during the trial."
posted by the Real Dan at 2:05 PM on July 27, 2024 [3 favorites]