## Facts

- Murray Stewart, a county engineer, supervised a county bridge-crew laborer, Thomas Stubblefield.
- Stubblefield was summoned for federal jury service; court personnel reported to the district judge that Stubblefield was experiencing problems with his employer because of jury duty.
- After jury service began, Stubblefield was transferred from the bridge crew to another assignment; the district judge concluded Stewart had retaliated against Stubblefield for serving as a juror.
- Stewart was arrested and brought before the district judge for contempt based on alleged interference with federal jury service.
- At the contempt hearing, Stewart appeared without counsel, conducted his own defense, and the record did not show that he was advised of a right to counsel or that any waiver was knowing and intelligent.
- The district court labeled the matter “civil contempt” and imposed a $100 fine and a term of probation, without findings tied to compensation for loss or coercion of future compliance.

## Issues

1. Whether the contempt sanction was civil or criminal in substance, regardless of the district court’s label.
2. Whether the procedures used satisfied due process requirements applicable to criminal contempt, including notice and the right to counsel.
3. Whether the evidence established contempt, including violation of a clear, specific judicial command and willful disobedience.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the contempt judgment.
- The court held the sanction was criminal in nature because it was fixed and punitive rather than coercive or compensatory.
- Because the contempt was criminal, the proceeding required criminal-type safeguards that were not provided, including adequate notice of the charge and protection of the right to counsel.
- The court concluded the record did not show violation of a clear and definite court order or otherwise supply sufficient proof to sustain contempt.

## Legal Principles

- The classification of contempt turns on the character and purpose of the sanction, not the trial court’s label.
- A fixed, retrospective fine and probation imposed to punish past conduct is criminal contempt, triggering heightened procedural protections.
- Criminal contempt requires fundamental due process, including clear notice of the alleged contempt and protection of the right to counsel absent a knowing, intelligent waiver.
- Contempt liability generally requires a clear and specific court order, the contemnor’s knowledge of that order, and a willful violation; ambiguous “messages” or unclear commands are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit invalidated the contempt adjudication because the district court imposed punitive sanctions that functioned as criminal contempt without providing required procedural safeguards, and because the record failed to establish a clear judicial command and willful disobedience sufficient to support any contempt finding.


In re Stewart, 571 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1978)