## Facts

- Larry Little was tried in a North Carolina district court for carrying a concealed weapon.
- On the trial date, Little sought a continuance because his retained lawyer had a conflicting court appearance; the judge denied the request, and Little proceeded pro se.
- During closing argument, Little stated that the court was biased, had prejudged the case, and that he was a “political prisoner.”
- The judge immediately found Little in direct criminal contempt and summarily sentenced him to 30 days in jail under North Carolina contempt statutes.
- The written contempt order characterized the remarks as disrespectful and as reflecting on the court’s integrity and tending to subvert justice.
- The record also noted that, while being removed, Little used profane language toward the judge; the contempt judgment and the State’s defense of it did not rely on that profanity.
- Little sought state habeas relief; the superior court denied relief after argument without taking evidence, and state appellate courts denied review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the contempt conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s courtroom statements accusing the judge of bias and prejudgment, made during summation and without actual disruption, may be punished as direct criminal contempt.
2. Whether criminal contempt requires conduct that obstructs proceedings or creates an imminent threat to the administration of justice, rather than mere disrespect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the contempt conviction in a per curiam, unanimous decision.
- Little’s statements did not constitute criminal contempt because they were not boisterous, did not disrupt the proceeding, and did not create an imminent threat to the administration of justice.
- The Court set aside the profane remark noted in the record because it was not relied on by the state courts as the basis for the contempt conviction and was not argued as such.

## Legal Principles

- Direct criminal contempt may not be imposed solely for disrespectful or critical remarks about a judge.
- The constitutional and statutory basis for contempt requires conduct that actually obstructs the proceeding or creates an imminent threat to the administration of justice.
- Accusations that a court is biased or has prejudged a case, made in the course of argument and without disruption, are insufficient to support a contempt conviction.

## Conclusion

The Court held that harsh criticism of a judge during summation cannot be punished as criminal contempt absent actual disruption or an imminent threat to the administration of justice, and it reversed Little’s summary 30-day contempt sentence.


In re Little, 404 U.S. 553 (1972)