Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Dominick Codispoti and Herbert Langnes were codefendants with Richard Mayberry in a criminal trial ending in a verdict of guilty. Each acted as his own counsel, although legal advice was available from appointed counsel. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge pronounced Mayberry guilty of 11 contempts committed during trial and sentenced him to one to two years for each contempt. Codispoti was given like sentences for each of seven separate contempts. Langnes was sentenced to one to two years on each of six separate citations. Mayberry's total sentence was thus 11 to 22 years, Codispoti's seven to 14 years, and Langnes' six to 12 years. The contempt convictions were affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This Court granted Mayberry's petition for certiorari, 397 U.S. 1020, and vacated the judgment of the Pennsylvania court, directing that 'on remand another judge, not bearing the sting of these slanderous remarks and having the impersonal authority of the law, [sit] in judgment on the conduct of petitioner as shown by the record.' Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 466 (1971). The contempt charges against Mayberry and petitioners were then retried in separate proceedings before another trial judge. Codispoti's demand for a jury was denied. He also moved to subpoena witnesses 'to prove that my actions did not disrupt the proceedings, and I intend to prove that my actions [sic] was not contemptuous, that it was merely an answer to the provocation made by the presiding Judge.' This motion was denied. The trial then proceeded, the State offering into evidence the relevant portions of the transcript of the 1966 criminal proceedings in the course of which the alleged contempt occurred. The State then rested. Codispoti neither testified nor called witnesses. The court found that he had committed the seven contemptuous acts as charged and sentenced him to six months in prison for each of six contempts and a term of three months for another, all of these sentences to run consecutively. Petitioner Langnes' trial followed a very similar course. He was found guilty of six separate contempts and sentenced to five terms of six months each and one term of two months, all to be served consecutively. The court also held that petitioners were not entitled to a jury trial 'because the questions of guilt to which the juries' decisions would be limited had already been adjudicated adversely to the Defendants by two appellate courts. Furthermore, in the instant cases, no term of imprisonment in excess of six months was imposed for any one offense. The offenses for which sentences were imposed occurred at different times and on different dates.' The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed without opinion, one justice dissenting on the ground that petitioners were entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to those questions raising the issue whether petitioners should have been afforded a jury trial.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co