United States v. Karenza Pickering, 794 F.3d 802

Karenza Pickering was mailed a federal jury summons (mailed June 17) and a reminder (July 8) but did not appear on July 18.
The district judge asked the DOJ to initiate criminal contempt proceedings; the government filed a motion for a rule to show cause under Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1).
At the contempt hearing Pickering testified (unchallenged) that she received the summons but forgot it while pregnant with complications and while caring for an ill mother; the government declined to cross-examine or recommend disposition.
The judge found Pickering guilty of willful criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, sentencing her to a $250 fine and entering a criminal conviction on the judgment form.
The court of appeals concluded the record lacked proof beyond a reasonable doubt of willfulness, noted procedural and statutory ambiguities in the charging basis, and criticized the judge’s conduct and burden-shifting.
The appellate court reversed, ordered judgment of acquittal, and directed refund of the fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contempt conviction supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Government: judge’s firsthand credibility assessment supported conviction	Pickering: uncontradicted testimony showed non-willful conduct; government presented no evidence of willfulness	Reversed — conviction unsupported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Proper allocation of burden of proof in criminal contempt	Government: summary contempt procedure appropriate	Pickering: judge shifted burden to her to prove lack of willfulness, violating presumption of innocence	Reversed — judge impermissibly shifted burden; defendant entitled to benefit of doubt
Sufficiency of procedural charging basis and statutory authority	Government pointed in filing to 18 U.S.C. § 401 and 28 U.S.C. § 1866 but made no showing at hearing	Pickering: charging papers not communicated and judge cited no statutory basis; uncertainty whether penalty was civil or criminal	Reversed — procedural/statutory basis was unclear and judge treated matter as criminal without adequate proof or notice
Judge’s courtroom conduct and reliance on demeanor	Government: judge best situated to assess credibility from demeanor	Pickering: demeanor is an unreliable basis; judge’s comments and use of first name were improper	Reversed — appellate court criticized reliance on demeanor and improper judicial conduct

Federal Trade Comm’n v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses tension between summary contempt procedures and criminal proof standards)
In re Van Meter, 413 F.2d 536 (8th Cir. 1969) (order to show cause is a notice mechanism and contemnor retains presumption of innocence)
United States v. Mottweiler, 82 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 1996) (willfulness required for contempt for failing to obey jury summons)
In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1945) (distinguishes summary contempt from offenses requiring jury trial, e.g., perjury)
Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (U.S. 1987) (discusses inherent judicial authority to punish for contempt)