Ex Parte Hudgings

Background

A man who had been called as a witness in a federal criminal trial was held in jail after the trial judge concluded he was lying about whether he had seen two men write certain documents. The judge committed him for contempt and ordered that the confinement continue until he “purged” the contempt, even though a grand jury had also indicted him for perjury and he was granted bail on that charge.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether a judge may punish a witness for contempt simply because the judge believes the witness committed perjury. The Justices explained that punishing in-court false swearing as contempt is only lawful when the false testimony has an obstructive effect on the court’s ability to do its job. Because the record showed the commitment was imposed solely for supposed perjury without any finding that the testimony actually obstructed the court, the punishment exceeded judicial power. The Court emphasized the danger of allowing judges to detain witnesses until they give testimony the judge finds truthful, calling that potential coercion of testimony and an undue invasion of liberty.

Real world impact

The Court ordered the witness’s release and made clear that courts may not use contempt power to imprison witnesses for alleged perjury unless the false testimony also clearly obstructs the court’s duties. The opinion protects witnesses from being held until they change their testimony and signals that extraordinary habeas review can correct such abuses.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Pitney dissented; the opinion does not detail his reasoning in the text provided.