Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Moody, K., 125 A.3d 1

Warrick charged with two homicides; in-court family disturbance led to a three-hour court lockdown.
Appellees (victims’ relatives) were in the gallery; Warrick’s mother sought private counsel and a continuance.
A courtroom melee occurred when the mother was to testify; a court officer and deputies intervened.
Court reconvened and, after observing the disturbance, the judge conducted a summary direct criminal contempt proceeding.
Appellees were not represented at the initial proceeding; the court appointed counsel for allocution before sentencing.
Trial court sentenced each appellee to five to ten days’ imprisonment; Superior Court vacated and remanded for new contempt proceedings; this Court reverses and remands for reinstatement of sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contempt properly summary direct criminal contempt given the trial court’s observation?	Moody argues the court observed the conduct in open court.	Commonwealth argues the court did observe and could proceed summarily.	Yes; the trial court observed conduct and could proceed summarily.
Are direct-criminal-contempt defendants entitled to counsel and to call witnesses in summary proceedings?	Moody asserts due process requires counsel and cross-examination.	Commonwealth asserts no right to counsel or witness cross-examination in summary contempt.	No; defendants are not entitled to counsel or witnesses in direct criminal contempt summary proceedings.

In re Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (1888) (direct criminal contempt may be punished instantly when observed in court)
Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925) (no need of evidence when contempt is directly under the eye of the court)
Ex parte Savin, 131 U.S. 267 (1889) (direct observation allows punishment without trial or issue)
Falana, 548 Pa. 156, 696 A.2d 126 (1997) (presence in open court supports contempt finding without hearing if the judge observed the conduct)
Pounders v. Watson, 521 U.S. 982 (1997) (summary contempt where judge can rely on own view of conduct)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (nature of conduct in open court affects due process safeguards)
Behr v. Behr, 548 Pa. 144, 695 A.2d 776 (1997) (summary punishment proper to protect court’s authority)
Commonwealth v. Africa, 466 Pa. 603, 353 A.2d 855 (1976) (summary contempt power to protect orderly administration of justice)
Commonwealth v. Garrison, 478 Pa. 356, 386 A.2d 971 (1978) (presence of the court includes near-by conduct that obstructs justice)
Crawford, 466 Pa. 269, 352 A.2d 52 (1976) (counsel rights in contempt depend on context; majority opinion limits applicability)
Abrams, 461 Pa. 327, 336 A.2d 308 (1975) (earlier rule on uncounseled contempt; dispelled by later standards)