In all cases of criminal contempt arising under the provisions of this Act, the accused, upon conviction, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both: Provided however, That in case the accused is a natural person the fine to be paid shall not exceed the sum of $1,000, nor shall imprisonment exceed the term of six months: Provided further, That in any such proceeding for criminal contempt, at the discretion of the judge, the accused may be tried with or without a jury: Provided further, however, That in the event such proceeding for criminal contempt be tried before a judge without a jury and the sentence of the court upon conviction is a fine in excess of the sum of $300 or imprisonment in excess of forty-five days, the accused in said proceeding, upon demand therefore, shall be entitled to a trial de novo before 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 interfere directly with the administration of justice nor to the misbehavior, misconduct, or disobedience, of any officer of the court in respect to the writs, orders, or process of the court.
Nor shall anything herein or in any other provision of law be construed to deprive courts of their power, by civil contempt proceedings, without a jury, to secure compliance with or to prevent obstruction of, as distinguished from punishment for violations of, any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court in accordance with the prevailing usages of law and equity, including the power of detention.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case:
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).
· cites it 2× “638 , § 151, 42 U. S. C. § 1995 , provides a right to a de novo trial by jury to all criminal contemnors convicted in cases arising under the Act who are fined in excess of $300 or sentenced to imprisonment for more than 45 days, exception being made for contempts committed in…”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 300e-9(d)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 1995 ; 47 U.S.C. § 504 (a). 6 See, e.”
James G. Clark, Jr., Sheriff of Dallas Cnty., Alabama v. Amelia P. Boynton, 362 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1966).
· cites it 2× “” So preoccupied have the parties been with the contentions pro and con that the fine exceeding, as it does, $300 automatically triggered the jury trial provisions of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1995 1 which came into being in the 1957 Civil Rights Act, 2 the real deficiency of this record…”
United States v. Kenneth A. Kozel, 908 F.2d 205 (7th Cir. 1990).
“§§ 402 , 3691, and 3692 (1988) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1995 and 2000h (1982), which explicitly create entitlements to a jury trial for various kinds of criminal contempt.”
Kennedy v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 78 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
“In what is now codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1995 , Congress provided that any party found to be in criminal contempt who the court determines should be punished by a fine in excess of $300 or imprisoned in excess of 45 days, shall have a right to a trial de novo before a jury.”
Daker v. Ward (M.D. Ga. 2023).
“§§ 401 and 402, 42 U.S.C. § 1995 , 28 U.S.C. § 1914 , Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11) with Doc.”
Santos v. Barlett (M.D. Fla. 2025).
“§ 1983 , 42 U.S.C. § 1995 , “C.F.R. § 72.11,” and 28 C.”
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.