Me....bring sanity....GOD FORBID!!!
Anyway, Heres a little excerpt from the MI Judge's Benchbook....
Michigan Judicial Institute © 2000 Page 31
3.14 Disqualification of Judge
As a general rule, a party seeking to disqualify a judge must show actual bias
or prejudice. MCR 2.003(B)(1) and In re Contempt of Rapanos, 143 Mich
App 483, 498 (1985). However, because of the nature of contempt
proceedings, several specific rules also apply.
A. Direct Contempt Proceedings
The judge who witnessed the contumacious conduct in direct contempt
cases should preside over summary proceedings. See MCL 600.1711(1);
MSA 27A.1711(1), and In re Contempt of Warriner (City of Detroit v
Warriner), 113 Mich App 549, 554–55 (1982). However, an independent
judge must preside over direct contempt cases where proceedings are
deferred.
In People v Kurz, 35 Mich App 643, 659 (1971), the Court of Appeals stated
that “in every case where a judge defers consideration of the contempt
citation until after the conclusion of the trial the charge must be considered
and heard before another judge.” See also In re Contempt of Scharg (People
v Godfrey), 207 Mich App 438, 441 (1994), where the Court of Appeals
stated that “Kurz requires a hearing before an independent judge in all
deferred summary contempt proceedings, regardless of the actual
objectivity of the court.”
The Kurz opinion identified the requirement of an independent judge as “the
Mayberry rule,” referring to Mayberry v Pennsylvania, 400 US 455; 91 S Ct
499; 27 L Ed 2d 532 (1971). In Mayberry, the trial judge was subjected to
several personal insults by the defendant, who represented himself in a
criminal trial. The United States Supreme Court concluded that a judge who
is personally attacked in such a manner “necessarily becomes embroiled in
a running, bitter controversy.” The defendant, therefore, was entitled to have
the contempt charges heard by a different judge. Id., at 465–66. Note,
however, that Kurz does not require that the judge be personally attacked
before disqualification. Kurz, supra, at 659.
For contrary views, see In re Thurston (People v Shier), 226 Mich App 205,
209 n 3 (1997), reversed 459 Mich 918 (1998) (the statement in Kurz that
disqualification is required in every case is dictum), and In re Albert, 383
Mich 722, 725 (1970) (Court of Appeals panel is not required to disqualify
itself to hear contempt charges of attorney arguing case before that panel).
Page 32 Contempt of Court Benchbook—Revised Edition
Section 3.15
If the judge who witnessed the contempt is disqualified from hearing the
case, another judge of the same court who was not involved in the
proceedings should preside. MCR 2.003(C)(4) and In the Matter of Hirsch,
116 Mich App 233, 241 (1982).
B. Indirect Contempt Cases
The judge who presided over the proceedings in the context of which the
contumacious conduct occurred should preside over the contempt
proceedings. Cross Co v UAW Local No 155 (AFL-CIO), 377 Mich 202, 212
(1966).
C. Cases Involving Publication of Comments Concerning Court
or Judge
*See Section
5.17 for further
discussion of
criticism of a
court or judge
as contempt.
Where the alleged contempt consists of the publication of comments
concerning a court or judge, the defendant is entitled to have the contempt
proceedings occur in a different court. “In proceedings for contempt arising
out of the publication of any news, information, or comment concerning a
court of record, except the supreme court, or any judge of that court the
defendant has the right to have the proceedings heard by the judge of another
court of record.” MCL 600.1731; MSA 27A.1731.*
3.15 Right to Jury Trial Restricted to “Serious Criminal
Contempt”
There is no right to jury trial in civil contempt cases. Cross Co v UAW Local
No 155 (AFL-CIO), 377 Mich 202, 211 (1971). The constitutional right to
jury trial applies only to “serious” criminal contempt cases. Bloom v Illinois,
391 US 194, 201–11; 88 S Ct 1444; 20 L Ed 2d 522 (1968). In Michigan,
criminal contempt is “petty” rather than “serious” if the penalty does not
exceed six months. People v Goodman, 17 Mich App 175, 178–79 (1969).
See also Codispoti v Pennsylvania, 418 US 506, 515; 94 S Ct 2687; 41 L Ed
2d 912 (1974) (a jury trial is required under US Const, Am VI, for contempt
of court, where the sentences imposed on each contemnor aggregated more
than 6 months).
In United Mine Workers v Bagwell, 512 US 821, 837 n 5; 114 S Ct 2552;
129 L Ed 2d 642 (1994), the United States Supreme Court declined to
establish a line between “petty” and “serious” fines for contempt. The Court
did conclude, however, that a fine of $52 million was a “serious” criminal
fine.
3.16 Applicability of Rules of Evidence
The rules of evidence, other than those regarding privileges, do not apply
during summary contempt hearings. MRE 1101(b)(4). However, in indirect
contempt cases and cases where summary contempt proceedings could have
been used but were not, the rules of evidence apply. MRE 1101(a).
Flash Backs are for free . . . .
Going To Jail For Contempt
