Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by doing or omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (1964).
· cites it 10× “844 , 18 U. S. C. § 3691 , entitles them to a jury trial in this case.”
Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958).
· cites it 4× “, 18 U. S. C. § 3691 ; Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat.”
United States v. Ross R. Barnett & Paul B. Johnson, Jr, 330 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1963).
· cites it 8× “” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 . By explicit language, Section 3691 is limited to contempts which “consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States.”
United States v. Kimsey, 668 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3691 (emphasis added). Although the right to jury trial under § 3691 is contingent upon a “demand” therefor, the statute does not specify that a defendant must “demand” a jury trial in any particular manner or at any particular stage of the proceedings.”
United States v. Mirra, 220 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1963).
· cites it 2× “And 18 U.S.C. § 3691 , dealing with trial by jury for criminal contempt (see footnote 10 infra) carries forward the procedural distinction between disobedience of court orders and disobedience in the courtroom by providing that the jury trial provision does not apply to…”
United States v. Shirley Rangolan, 464 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2006).
“Rangolan requested a jury trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3691 , which authorizes jury trials on charges of criminal contempt that do not occur in the presence of the court.”
United States v. Wright, 516 F. Supp. 1113 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
· cites it 3× “on behalf of, the United States,” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3691 .® We do not think that Toner v.”
US Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Buscher, 89 B.R. 154 (D. Kan. 1988).
“Furthermore, due process may entitle defendant to a trial by jury on the charge that he violated the preliminary injunction; 18 U.S.C. § 3691 provides a criminal contempt defendant with a right to trial by jury when the contempt charge is disobedience of a court order, and the…”
Ray C. Ballantyne v. United States, 237 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1956).
· cites it 2× “In this posture of the record, and appellant being charged with knowledge of those questions which he had refused to answer under claimed protection of his constitutional privilege, we are constrained to view any lack of technical specificity by the court in stating the offense…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.