Friday, January 9, 2009

WSJ: "No Charge: In Civil-Contempt Cases, Jail Time Can Stretch On for Years"

The esteemed Wall Street Journal takes a look at civil contempt cases and comes to the same conclusion that we have. They suck. re-posted here for your convenience.

By ASHBY JONES

One can spend a long time in jail in the U.S. without ever being charged with a crime.

It happened to H. Beatty Chadwick, a former Philadelphia-area lawyer, who has been behind bars for nearly 14 years without being charged.

Businessman Manuel Osete spent nearly three years in an Arizona jail without ever receiving a criminal charge. And investment manager Martin Armstrong faced a similar situation when he was held for more than six years in a Manhattan jail.

All three men were jailed for civil contempt, a murky legal concept. Some scholars say it is too often abused by judges, to the detriment of those charged and their due-process rights. "These results of too many civil-contempt confinements are flatly outrageous and often unconstitutional," says Jayne Ressler, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Martin Armstrong was jailed for six years for civil contempt.

In some contexts, the federal system limits civil-contempt confinement to 18 months. Some states have similar limits. But in other states, judges face few restrictions on how long someone can be held in civil contempt.

A judge generally can issue either a civil or criminal contempt charge whenever he or she feels that a party has disobeyed an order or has disrupted a proceeding.

In a criminal contempt charge, which is aimed at punishing bad behavior, a defendant is afforded the due-process safeguards of the criminal system, including a possible jury trial.

Civil contempt charges, on the other hand, are meant to be coercive, issued to force behavior such as making a witness testify, compelling a journalist to reveal sources or strong-arming a parent into paying child support. Because civil "contemnors" hold the key to their own freedom -- after all, complying will spring them -- they aren't given the same due-process rights as criminal defendants.

If someone held for civil contempt can't meet the judge's order, theoretically, the confinement should end. And while long-term civil confinements are unusual, problems arise when a court doesn't believe the person. With the party and judge at loggerheads over, say, the availability of funds, it is often the contemnor who loses, forced to remain behind bars at the mercy of a skeptical judge. That has sparked cries for reform.

Consider Mr. Chadwick's case. In 1994, during divorce proceedings, a Delaware County judge held Mr. Chadwick in civil contempt for failing to put $2.5 million in a court-controlled account. He says he lost the money in bad investments; his wife's attorney claimed he had hidden it offshore. In April 1995, Mr. Chadwick was arrested and detained. Nearly 14 years later, Mr. Chadwick, who suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is still in jail -- even after a retired judge was hired to help locate the money, and failed.

"The money is gone," says Mr. Chadwick's lawyer, Michael Malloy. "The coercive effect of this order is gone; it has turned into a life sentence."

The judge who held Mr. Chadwick in contempt in 1994 couldn't be reached for comment, but he has said publicly that he doesn't believe Mr. Chadwick lacks the funds.

Few argue that civil-contempt confinement should be abandoned altogether. "The threat of jail is sometimes the only thing that will make a person comply with a court order," says Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA law school.

For some, including Albert Momjian, the lawyer for Mr. Chadwick's ex-wife, the theory still holds. "There's no doubt in my mind that he has the money and could walk out of jail next week if he wanted to," says Mr. Momjian.

Critics question why the burden rests with contemnors such as Mr. Chadwick to prove they don't have the money, rather than with a prosecutor to prove they do. "It runs counter to our entire system to say 'It's your burden to prove a negative,'" says Brooklyn Law School's Ms. Ressler.

Another concern: While those sent to jail for civil contempt may appeal their confinements, appellate judges often will overturn lower-court rulings only if they find an "abuse of discretion," a standard that offers trial judges wide latitude.

Reformers hope that more states enact laws limiting the terms of civil confinement, as Congress did in 1970, when it passed a statute limiting the length of civil-contempt confinement to 18 months for those who refuse to testify in federal court or to a federal grand jury. After that, if civil confinement hasn't coerced a certain behavior, the burden would fall to the government to bring criminal charges.

"As a matter of due process, I think 18 months is enough in most cases," says Thomas Sjoblom, the lawyer for Martin Armstrong. Mr. Sjoblom argued unsuccessfully that the 1970 law should have extended to the situation involving his client, who failed to produce $15 million in gold and antiquities in a civil suit alleging securities fraud. "After that, let the government prove a criminal case." Mr. Armstrong is currently serving a five-year sentence for criminal conspiracy.

Of course, such a limit might give contemnors an incentive to wait, knowing that eventually they will be reunited with their riches.

Nonetheless, some states are modifying their laws. In the midst of the situation involving Mr. Osete, who was detained in Arizona from late 2002 to late 2005 for refusing to hand over more than $800,000 in alimony and interest payments, which he said he didn't have, the Arizona Supreme Court changed its rules. Now, Arizona courts must hold hearings every 35 days for those held in civil contempt on family-law issues, and judges must find that a contemnor has the ability to comply with the order.

Write to Ashby Jones at ashby.jones@wsj.com

19 comments:

piratenewstv said...

Perhaps the 2nd US Civil War beginning in 2009 will break him out, as predicted by Wall Street experts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5938

optimist said...

Civil War? Doubtful. Our economy is looking more and more like 1935 then ever before. Scores of unemployed people, massive numbers of foreclosures, money changers in the temple. The big difference is the huge numbers of people in "security" and the vast number of corporately run prisons across the country. Any kind of civil outbreak would be easily quelled and the participants jailed...with out charge.

costaricarentacar said...

Congratulations! this blog is very interesting and has information most important we invite you to visit our site. Prices will amaze you Great investment opportunity at Costa Rica Pacific Coast, costarica real estate ,retirement in costa rica, costa rica condominiums. Visit us for more info at: http://www.Costa-RicaRealEstate.com

Scott said...

Optimist. Can you post your e-mail address. I would like to get involved. I can't seem to find a way to contact you via the blog page, so I'm leaving the comment here.

optimist said...

...Scott,
you can reach me here: optimist500@gmail.com

Hazel said...

Congratulations! this information it is very interesting, I invite you to visit my site about Costa Rica Real Estate and Retirement in Costa Rica and you will find both. Prices will amaze you have a great investment opportunity to invest in Costa Rica Pacific Coast.
Visit us for more info at: http://www.Costa-RicaRealEstate.com

Puma said...

This Chadwick case is making a mockery out of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

What happened to the Bill of Rights? What happened to the abolishments of slavery, peonage, and debtors prisons?

How come no one is speaking up about this?

MarkyMark said...

What happened to the Bill of Rights? It was run through the shredder, that's what!

Moses said...

anything new happening with this? what's beatty's inmate number, so we can write him?

optimist said...

Write to B. Chadwick at:

Chadwick
PO Box 23
Thornton, PA 19379

I'm sure he'd like to get some correspondence.

BillC said...

I'm pretty sure you have the zip code wrong. The full address is

Beatty Chadwick
#95-1785
Delaware County Prison
PO Box 23
Thornton, PA 19373

Puma said...

Chadwich Beatty is free!

He is a modern day folk hero. He has defied an unjust, unconstitutional, kangaroo-court system, and won.

He will be remembered 2-3 centuries from now, long after the madness and collapse of the Marriage 2.0 years are over.

Chadwick - we salute you!

Anonymous said...

So glad to hear Mr. Chadwick is finally free! This entire situation was nonsense, it's a shame that a man lost 13 years of his life because of some stubborn judge. The judge needs to be punished for his irresponsible actions, and regulations need to be put into effect so something like this never happens again. No trial, no prison time!

Anonymous said...

酒店兼職

酒店

酒店工作

禮服酒店

酒店兼差


酒店打工

酒店經紀

酒店上班

台北酒店



酒店pt

兼差打工

打工兼差

酒店正職 酒店賺錢 酒店喝酒 酒店消費 喝花酒 粉味 喝酒

milf said...

dessicant air dryer pediatric asthma asthma specialist
carpet cleaning dallas tx carpet cleaners dallas carpet cleaning dallas
beach vacations your beach vacations
bob hairstyle
bob haircuts bob layered pob hairstyle
bobbed classic bob Care for Curly Hair
Tips for Curly Hair curly hair 12r 22.5 best price
tires truck bus tires 12r 22.5 washington new house
new house Houston new house san Antonio new house ventura
sealy air beds portable portables air beds
antique doorknobs drying desiccant
air drying desiccantlipitor allergic reactionsApple prodam iphone praha

milf said...

new houston house houston house tx stains removal dye
stains removal clothes stains removal teeth whitening
teeth whiteningbright teeth jennifer grey nose
jennifer nose jobs calebrities nose jobs Women with Big Noses
Women hairstyles Big Nose Women, hairstylesdvd player troubleshootingtroubleshooting with the dvd playercheap beach vacationsnight vision binoculars bargainsflorida headache clinic

Anonymous said...

Family court is nothing more than a governmental sanctioned criminal cartel:

http://www.lillycollette.com

This blog presents my discovery of scandalous criminal misconduct in a sham divorce action by an unmarried woman, that being Susan Lee Rice (Susan).

In the great game of South Carolina Divorce Lotto Susan was awarded the residential property of a man to whom she was not married and allowed to enslave him for the support of her bastard child which he could not have sired.

lillycollette@bellsouth.net

Anonymous said...

I know a landlord who is my neighbor and facing these sames civil contempt charges in the same county as Beatty.
The judge who is throwing the book at her is an aging old bi@tch.
The landlady is an attractive smart well to do lady.
Sick country we live in when people can be locked up for no good reason.
In hell holes.

kay sieverding said...

YOUNG v. UNITED STATES EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A. ET AL., 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 (U.S. 05/26/1987) has quite a lot on this subject