|
|
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968)
Bloom v. Illinois No. 52 Argued January 16-17, 1968 Decided May 20, 1968 391 U.S. 194
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
Petitioner was convicted in Illinois of criminal contempt and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment for willfully petitioning to admit to probate a will falsely prepared and executed after the putative testator’s death. His request for a jury trial was refused by the trial court. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.
Held:
1. In view of the holdings in United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (1964); Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966), and Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 145, the broad rule that all criminal contempts can be constitutionally tried without a jury is reexamined. Pp. 195-198.
2. Criminal contempt is a crime in every essential respect; serious criminal contempts are so nearly like other serious crimes that they are subject to the Constitution’s jury trial provisions, and only petty contempts may be tried without honoring demands for trial by jury. The progression of legislative and judicial restrictions on the unfettered power to try contempts summarily reflects this identity, and underlines the need to extend traditional protections to trials for serious contempts. Pp. 201-210.
3. To the extent that summary punishment for criminal contempts preserves the dignity, effectiveness and efficiency of the judicial process, those interests are outweighed by the need to provide the defendant charged with a serious criminal contempt with all the procedural protections deemed fundamental to our judicial system. The power to commit for civil contempt and to punish petty criminal contempts summarily is unaffected. Pp. 208-210.
4. When the legislature has not expressed a judgment as to the seriousness of an offense by fixing a maximum penalty, the best evidence as to the seriousness of the offense is the penalty actually imposed. Accordingly, petitioner, sentenced to a two-year prison term, was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. See Duncan v. Louisiana, supra. Pp. 210-211.
35 Ill.2d 255, 220 N.E.2d 475, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968) in 391 U.S. 194 391 U.S. 195. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KAYEZBT8ERWL6E1.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968), in 391 U.S. 194, page 391 U.S. 195. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KAYEZBT8ERWL6E1.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968). cited in 1968, 391 U.S. 194, pp.391 U.S. 195. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KAYEZBT8ERWL6E1.
|