Contempt of Court

What Is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of court is an act of disrespect or disobedience toward a court or interference with its orderly process.

Key Takeaways

  • Contempt of court is a legal violation committed by an individual who disobeys a judge or otherwise disrupts the legal process in the courtroom.
  • Contempt of court is broadly classified into two categories: criminal versus civil, and direct versus indirect.
  • Contempt of court contains four essential elements under Title 18 of the United States Code.
  • If the four criteria are met, a judge may hold the violating person in contempt of court, which carries a range of punishments, including monetary fines and jail time.
  • Any individual in the courtroom, from defendants or plaintiffs to witnesses or lawyers, is capable of being held in contempt of court.

Understanding Contempt of Court

Contempt of court contains three essential elements under Title 18 of the United States Code:

  1. Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
  2. Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
  3. Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

Contempt of court is broadly classified into two categories: criminal versus civil, and direct versus indirect. As criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense, such contempt charges are punitive—involving fines or imprisonment—and are separate from the underlying case being heard. Civil contempt charges are aimed at compelling future compliance with a court order and can be avoided through obedience.

Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the court, while indirect contempt occurs outside the court’s presence.

Judges have wide latitude in deciding whom to hold in contempt of court, as well as the type of contempt. An act of disrespect, disobedience, defiance, or interference by any of the parties involved in a legal proceeding—from witnesses and defendants to jurors and lawyers—can be considered as contempt of court.

Special Considerations

Exponential growth in the use of online tools and social media has resulted in new challenges for the justice system. In order to ensure juror impartiality and avoid the possibility of a mistrial, the courts have always instructed jurors to refrain from seeking information about cases apart from evidence introduced at trial, and also to avoid communication about a case before a verdict is reached.

In 2010, a Reuters Legal study found that at least 90 verdicts in the United States since 1999 had been the subject of challenges because of internet-related misconduct by jurors.

In the past, jurors have been jailed for contempt of court for using the internet while serving on the jury. In 2011, a juror in the United Kingdom was jailed for eight months—becoming the first juror in the country to be prosecuted for internet-related contempt of court—after she exchanged messages with a defendant on Facebook (now Meta), causing a multi-million-pound trial to collapse.

Two years later, in 2013, two jurors in the U.K. were jailed for two months on contempt of court charges after one of them made comments on Facebook about the defendant, while the other conducted online research on the case he was involved in as a juror.

Example of Contempt of Court

The case of Martin A. Armstrong is a famous example of civil contempt of court. Armstrong, a former financial advisor who founded a firm known as Princeton Economics International, was accused of a $3 billion Ponzi scheme by the U.S. government in a civil suit of securities fraud.

In January 2000, he was ordered by a federal judge to turn over to the government about $15 million in gold bars, rare coins, and antiquities. Armstrong claimed that he did not have the assets, and his repeated inability to produce them resulted in him being jailed for seven years on various criminal acts, along with fines associated with contempt of court charges.

In April 2007, Armstrong was sentenced to five years in jail after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to hide trading losses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. He was released from prison in March 2011.

Article Sources
Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate. You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our editorial policy.
  1. United States Code. "18 USC §401: Power of Court." Accessed Nov. 25, 2021.

  2. House of Representatives. "U.S. Code Title 18." Accessed Nov. 28, 2021.

  3. United States Code. "18 USC §402: Contempts Constituting Crimes." Accessed Nov. 25, 2021.

  4. Reuters. "As Jurors Go Online, U.S. Trials Go Off Track." Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

  5. GOV.UK. "Juror and Defendant Sentenced for Contempt of Court Over Facebook." Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

  6. GOV.UK. "Two Jurors Convicted for Internet Use." Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

  7. U.S. Department of Justice. "Former Currency Trader Pleads Guilty in Connection With $3 Billion Ponzi Scheme," Page 2. Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

  8. U.S. Supreme Court. "Brief for the Respondents in Opposition," Pages 2-4. Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

  9. U.S. Supreme Court. "Petition for Writ of Centiorari," Page 26. Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

  10. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "Memorandum," Page 2. Accessed Nov. 26, 2021.

Take the Next Step to Invest
×
The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace.
Service
Name
Description