Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Cheff v. Schnackenberg — Dissent

So long as all contempts are lumped together, the serious nature of some contempts and the severity of the sentences commonly imposed in such cases control the legal character of all contempts. None can be regarded as petty. Distinctions between contempts which, after the fact, draw a six-month or greater sentence and those which do not are based on constitutionally irrelevant factors and seem irrelevant to the analysis.
The Constitution, as I see it, thus requires a trial by jury for the crime of criminal contempt, as it does for all other crimes.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Cheff v. Schnackenberg — Dissent

There is in my view no longer any warrant for regarding punishment for contempt as a minor matter, strictly between the court and the accused. 'We take a false and one-sided view of history when we ignore its dynamic aspects. The year books can teach us how a principle or a rule had its beginnings. They cannot teach us that what was the beginning shall also be the end.' Cardozo, The Growth of the Law 104-105 (1924) .
The prevailing opinion today suggests that a jury is required where the sentence imposed exceeds six months but not when it is less than that period.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature