## Facts

- Georgia Carradine witnessed a homicide and previously gave a statement to an assistant State’s Attorney.
- After failing to respond to a subpoena, she was brought to court on a bench warrant to testify as a State’s witness in a homicide prosecution.
- She answered preliminary questions but then refused to testify further, stating she feared for her life and her children’s lives.
- She did not assert, and could not assert, a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The trial court appointed counsel, warned her about contempt consequences, and offered protection and relocation for her family, including relocation outside Chicago and outside Illinois.
- Carradine continued to refuse to testify on multiple court dates despite these measures.
- The circuit court of Cook County found her in direct criminal contempt and imposed a six-month jail sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the written direct criminal contempt order was insufficient because it did not fully state the facts, including Carradine’s reason (fear) for refusing to testify.
2. Whether the six-month contempt sentence should be reduced to time served due to Carradine’s fear of retaliation and alleged inability of authorities to protect her.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the finding of direct criminal contempt.
- The Court held the contempt order sufficiently stated the operative facts constituting direct contempt observed in open court and was not required to include Carradine’s asserted motive for refusal.
- The Court affirmed the six-month jail sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in light of the repeated refusals and the obstruction of a homicide prosecution.

## Legal Principles

- A witness’s deliberate refusal to testify in open court, without a valid privilege, may constitute direct criminal contempt because it obstructs the administration of justice.
- For direct contempt, the written order is sufficient if it recites the essential circumstances of the contumacious conduct and the court’s warnings; it need not include the contemnor’s subjective reasons for disobedience.
- Fear of retaliation, absent a legally recognized privilege or other lawful basis to refuse, does not excuse noncompliance with a court order to testify; it may be considered only, if at all, in assessing the sanction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a direct criminal contempt adjudication and a six-month jail term where a subpoenaed homicide witness repeatedly refused to testify without any applicable privilege, despite warnings, counsel, and offers of protection and relocation, because the refusal obstructed the court’s work and the contempt order adequately stated the observed misconduct.


People v. Carradine, 287 N.E.2d 670 (Ill. 1972)