Contempt is a tool that trial judges use to protect the integrity of the court.
Beyond that, contempt has two distinct purposes: punishment and prevention, says Cheryl Howell, a professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill School of Government.
These functions become the dividing line between what constitutes criminal and civil contempt.
Understanding Criminal Contempt
When charging someone with criminal contempt, the court is seeking to punish the person for violating a past order from the court, Howell says.
Criminal contempt is defined by statute to prohibit specific acts relating to the courts. In North Carolina, 11 separate things constitute criminal contempt, such as failing to adhere to court schedules and practices to the point that they interfere with the courts’ work. It’s also criminal contempt when a defendant refuses to comply with probation orders.
Direct criminal contempt is a violation that occurs in front of the judge. Imagine that, during a trial, a lawyer becomes belligerent and fails to comply with a judge’s instruction, or someone in the courtroom starts screaming and throwing things, interrupting the proceedings. Those are both examples of direct criminal contempt, Howell says.
Indirect criminal contempt results when the violation happens outside of the judge’s immediate view.
Because the offenses are technical in nature, intent is required. There’s no such thing as accidental criminal contempt, Howell says.
Distinguishing Civil Contempt From Criminal Contempt
While the reasoning behind criminal contempt is to punish the wrongdoer, “civil contempt is to coerce present behavior,” Howell says.
Crucially, the contemnor always has the ability to cure the violation. For example, a divorced parent who refuses to pay child support could be in contempt, but only if they had access to the funds — whether they had the cash on hand or a boat that was worth the amount owed, she says.
In civil contempt cases, since the goal is for the contemnor to remedy their actions, judges are often reticent about issuing a contempt citation. Instead, they may tell the contemnor that if they don’t comply with an order within three days, they’ll be fined and so on.
Contempt Procedure
While judges can initiate a contempt proceeding on their own, lawyers can ask the judge to consider a contempt charge. The judge will then hold a “show cause hearing” to determine if contempt is warranted.
Direct criminal contempt cases have a uniquely condensed procedure. Consider that a trial judge usually has no direct knowledge of the acts that resulted in the litigation.
But when it comes to direct criminal contempt cases, the event literally happened before their eyes. The judge is the witness, judge and jury. Therefore, they can conduct a quick summary proceeding to make their determination. The only requirement for due process is that the judge should give the contemnor an opportunity to respond to the charge, Howell says.
There’s another unique aspect of a contempt matter. Unlike most decisions that a judge makes, which are set in stone, a trial court can revisit a contempt judgment, reducing it or even throwing it out if they’d like to, she says.
If a party believes that the judge was wrong in issuing a contempt citation, they can appeal a contempt charge. Grounds for appeals may also include an order that was so vague or ambiguous that the party didn’t understand how to comply.
When appealing a contempt citation, a party can also ask the trial court (or appellate court) for a stay of incarceration pending the appeal.
Why Civil Contempt Can Land You in Jail
It is a basic premise of American law that criminal convictions can result in incarceration, fines or both, while defendants in civil lawsuits might pay damages but do not end up in jail, no matter how egregious their actions. The risk of incarceration is why criminal defendants are entitled to due process.
However, in the case of civil contempt, the defendant can be incarcerated. And even though they’re in jail, they do not have the due process protections afforded to criminal defendants, Howell says.
The justification for this through-the-looking-glass scenario is that they can set themselves free at any time if they comply with the court order. Therefore, the courts have ruled that they don’t need to be protected as a criminal defendant should be.
Contempt in Family Law Cases
Contempt cases are surprisingly common in family law cases. This may be due to the fact that — compared to other types of lawsuits that end with a judgment to pay money or otherwise resolve the issue — family law cases often require the parties comply with a list of judicial orders. And the parties may be under a court’s supervision for years, to see if they’re following children’s visitation schedules or spousal support requirements.
While direct criminal contempt may be what springs to mind when most people think about contempt, civil contempt, and this failure to comply with such longstanding orders, is probably more common, Howell says.
Preventing Bad Behavior vs. Punishing Past Behavior
When Howell gives lectures about contempt to a room full of judges, some judge will often bring up a hypothetical scenario in which someone violates a protective order. For example, they’ve been stalking someone. Should the stalker should be charged with civil or criminal contempt?
To decide this, Howell will ask the judges if they want to punish the stalker for the harassment or prevent the stalker from continuing to harass their target.
“Both!” the judges usually yell back.
But which is more important? It’s at this point that the true complexity of these distinctions is painfully clear.
While the distinctions between punishment and prevention seem bright in theory, the differences between civil and criminal contempt can become incredibly complicated in a courtroom.
More from U.S. News
What Does It Take for an Attorney to Be Disbarred?
When Are Government Officials Legally Immune?
What Is Contempt of Court? originally appeared on usnews.com
