## Facts

- Penelope Watson, a criminal defense attorney, represented a defendant in a multi-defendant murder trial in California state court presided over by Judge William R. Pounders.
- During trial, defense counsel repeatedly raised potential punishment if defendants were convicted.
- Judge Pounders repeatedly and expressly ordered counsel not to discuss sentencing or punishment before the jury, stating it was irrelevant and prejudicial in a non-capital case.
- Watson was present for the judge’s admonitions, including at a bench conference where the judge again instructed that sentencing was not to be mentioned.
- Despite the warnings, Watson later questioned her client in a manner that again raised possible punishment.
- The judge found Watson knowingly violated the court’s order, with the purpose of advising the jury about penalty, and that the conduct permanently prejudiced the jury.
- The judge summarily held Watson in criminal contempt in open court and imposed punishment through summary contempt procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether due process limits summary criminal contempt to conduct that is highly disruptive, or instead allows summary punishment for a single in-court violation that seriously threatens the orderly administration of justice.
2. Whether due process requires additional prerequisites for summary contempt, including (a) a pattern of repeated violations pervading the proceedings and (b) a finding that the misconduct would have continued absent immediate punishment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the state court’s summary criminal contempt order.
- The Court held the Ninth Circuit erred by imposing extra requirements not supported by Supreme Court precedent.
- The Court treated Watson’s open-court, knowing violation of a clear order—found to seriously prejudice the jury—as within the established category of conduct that may be punished summarily.

## Legal Principles

- Courts have longstanding authority to punish summary criminal contempt for misconduct occurring in the court’s presence that threatens the orderly administration of justice.
- Summary contempt may be used for a single episode of contumacious, in-court conduct that seriously prejudices an ongoing trial; repetition or pervasiveness is not required.
- The “least possible power adequate to the end proposed” principle does not require a specific finding that the contemnor would have repeated the misconduct but for immediate punishment.
- Due process constraints on summary contempt are satisfied where the contemnor has clear notice of the order, violates it in open court, and the violation threatens the integrity of the proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld summary criminal contempt as a permissible, immediate response to a deliberate, in-court violation of a clear trial order that seriously undermined the jury process, and rejected appellate-imposed due process prerequisites that lacked support in Supreme Court case law.


Pounders v. Watson, 521 U.S. 982 (1997)