789

Sentencing—Discretion with Respect to the Appropriate Fine or Imprisonment

Criminal contempt,fine,imprisonment,judicial discretion, sentencing,contempt Courts have broad discretion in setting the appropriate fine or imprisonment following a criminal contempt proceeding. See frank v. United states, 395 u.S. 147, 149 (1969); United states v. United mine workers of america, 330 u.S. 258, 303; United states v. Ray, 683 f.2d 1116 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1091 (1983); United states v. Greyhound corp., 508 F.2d 529, 541 (7th Cir. 1974); Moore v. United states, 150 f.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 740 (1945); Brooks v. United states, 119 f.2d 636, 646 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 594 (1941). However, the sentence imposed in a criminal contempt is subject to appellate review and modification. Green v. United states, 356 u.S. 165 (1958); United states v. Bukowski, 435 f.2d 1094 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 911 (1971). When a contemnor is to be summarily held in criminal contempt at the end of trial, the person should be given "an opportunity to speak in his own behalf in the nature of right of allocution." Groppi v. Leslie, 404 u.S. 496, 504 (1972); see Taylor v. Hayes, 418 u.S. 488, 498 (1974); Weiss v. Burr, 484 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1973). [cited in USAM 9-39.000]