Brandt v. Gooding, 636 F.3d 124

Brandt sued Gooding for legal malpractice in South Carolina state court arising from a real estate closing.
During discovery Brandt submitted a letter to an expert that appeared fraudulent; Gooding moved for contempt and sought to hold Brandt in contempt.
The state court suspended contempt proceedings but eventually held Brandt in direct criminal contempt for introducing the document at a deposition and sentenced him to six months.
Brandt appealed the contempt conviction to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which affirmed: it treated the act as direct contempt given its impact on the judicial system.
Brandt then filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court granted summary judgment for Brandt and denied Gooding’s intervention request; Brandt’s custodians and Gooding appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the SC Supreme Court’s direct-contempt ruling is entitled to AEDPA review.	Brandt's custodians contend SC Supreme Court decision on merits.	Respondents argue state ruling may be reviewed under state law and deference.	Assuming AEDPA applies, SC decision is contrary to federal precedent.
Whether Brandt received due process protections before contempt conviction.	Brandt lacked notice, counsel, and opportunity to be heard.	State provided notice and opportunity as per state procedure.	District court properly granted summary judgment for Brandt; due process violated.
Whether criminal contempt proceedings could proceed summarily without full due process.	Brandt argues summary process violated due process under Cooke/In re Oliver.	State proceeded under direct-contempt theory.	Summary contempt inappropriate where essential elements weren’t within the court’s view.
Whether Gooding could intervene under the CVRA in the habeas proceeding.	Gooding seeks to intervene as a crime victim.	CVRA does not grant intervention rights; could be heard as amicus.	CVRA does not provide intervention; district court did not err in denying intervention; CVRA allows being heard.

Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925) (direct-contempt due-process safeguards when not under the court's eye)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (due process for state-contempt cases; notice and defense required unless in court's direct view)
Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378 (1919) (purpose of judicial contempt power: to secure authority and compel compliance)
In re Chiles, 89 U.S. 157 (1874) (contempt power as independent proceeding to vindicate court’s authority)
Bray v. United States, 423 U.S. 73 (1975) (criminal contempt proceedings initiated at court’s discretion; not dependent on underlying case)