TAYLOR
v.
HAYES, JUDGE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Taylor v. Hayes, the Supreme Court considered whether a trial judge could summarily punish an attorney for contempt of court committed in the judge's presence by imposing consecutive sentences totaling four and one-half years, and whether the judge could subsequently reduce those sentences to avoid triggering the defendant's right to a jury trial, as well as whether due process required an opportunity to be heard before contempt adjudication and punishment. The Court granted certiorari to address these questions regarding the proper procedures and limitations on summary contempt sanctions imposed by judges.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition which read as follows:
“1. When a trial judge summarily imposes consecutive sentences on eight counts of contempt aggregating four and one-half years’ imprisonment, including sentences of one year’s imprisonment on two counts, whether he or the appellate court may subsequently, in order to defeat the alleged contemnor’s right to trial by jury, reduce the sentences so that the sentence on no one count exceeds six months’ imprisonment and direct that the sentences run concurrently for a total of six months’ imprisonment?
“2. When alleged contempts have been committed by an attorney in the presence of the trial judge and the trial judge proceeds summarily to punish for contempt, whether due process requires that the attorney be given some opportunity to be heard in defense or mitigation before he is finally adjudged guilty and sentence is imposed?
“3. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the trial judge could impartially sit in judgment on multiple contempt charges against the petitioner?”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974)…ice was not a permissible punishment for criminal contempt. The order prohibiting petitioner from practicing in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Criminal Branch, Second Division, was therefore reversed. We granted certiorari limited to specified issues, 414 U. S. 1063 (1973). I Petitioner contends that any charge of contempt of court, without exception, must be tried to a jury. Quite to the contrary, however, our cases hold that petty contempt like other petty criminal offenses may be tried without a jury and t…
-
Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1974)…opinion, one justice dissenting on the ground that petitioners were entitled to a jury trial. 453 Pa. 619, 306 A. 2d 294. We granted certiorari limited to those questions raising the issue whether petitioners should have been afforded a jury trial. 414 U. S. 1063 (1973).3 I In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed to defendants in state criminal trials the right to jury trial provided in the Sixth Amendment. In a companion case, Bloom v. Illinois…
-
William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters Dist. Council of Jacksonville & Vicinity, 417 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1974)…We granted certiorari to decide whether the holding of the Florida Supreme Court was consistent with decisions of this Court, including Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), and Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962). 414 U. S. 1063 (1973). We reverse. Article VI of a collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner, William E. Arnold Co., and respondents, Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville and Vicinity and its affiliate, Local 627 (Carpenters), provides: “There s…