Green v. United States

Background

Two men, Green and Winston, were among eleven people convicted in 1949 under the Smith Act, fined $10,000 and sentenced to five years. They were released on bail pending appeal. After this Court affirmed in June 1951, counsel was served on June 28 with a proposed order calling for personal surrender on July 2; counsel told the defendants to appear. The two fled and remained fugitives for more than four and a half years before surrendering in early 1956. The district court tried them without a jury for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. §401(3), sentenced each to three years to follow their five-year terms, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

At issue were whether contempt power covers surrender orders, whether the record proved knowledge of the order, and whether contempt sentences may exceed one year without a grand-jury indictment. The Court said §401(3) plainly covers disobedience of lawful orders, found the record sufficient to show knowing disobedience based on service on counsel, counsel’s warnings, disappearance, and the defendants’ statements at surrender, and held contempt sentences may exceed one year without an indictment, upholding the three-year terms.

Real world impact

The practical effect is that federal judges can use criminal contempt to punish willful failure to surrender, including imposing multi-year prison terms; people out on bail and their sureties face increased risk if defendants flee. The ruling preserves the courts’ summary contempt power but emphasizes careful judicial use and appellate supervision. The opinion notes Congress later made bail-jumping a crime while preserving contempt authority.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Frankfurter concurred, stressing long legislative and judicial history. Justice Black (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Douglas) dissented, arguing summary contempt with long prison terms violates jury and grand-jury protections. Justice Brennan (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Douglas) dissented, saying the evidence did not prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.