*1 WOOD v. GEORGIA. Argued
No. 369. March 1962. Decided June 1962. Milton Kramer argued petitioner. cause for With him on the briefs I. was James Wood.
E. Leverett, Freeman Deputy Attorney Assistant Gen- Georgia, argued eral of the cause for respondent. With Cook, Attorney General, Eugene were
him the briefs *2 Gautier, J. and lack West, General, M. Solicitor William General. Solicitor Assistant opinion of delivered Warren Justice
Mr. Chief the Court. scope of to consider certiorari granted
We by persons when enjoyed to be protection constitutional opinions thoughts and of their publication fair administration with the in conflict alleged be to an elected petitioner, The justice courts. in state contends that Georgia, County, in Bibb sheriff of court in holding him courts, Georgia a matter ideas on expressing personal for consideration, grand for its have jury presently before by speech protected free liberty of abridged his Clause and Due Process First Amendment Constitution. Federal Amendment to the Fourteenth Superior Court a of the Bibb 6, 1960, judge June On giv- grand jury, charge regularly impaneled a a issued to into instructions to conduct ing special allegedly arisen a had situation which political appeared there The was advised county. jury vot- pattern Negro and bloc inexplicable “an inane be that “rumors and accusations” ing” County, Bibb public candidates for had been made which indicated gain paid large money had sums of in an effort office charge ex- Negro and to obtain the vote. favor Negro leaders, having met and plained that certain after a support had switched their to an candidate, endorsed large opposing put up money, candidate who sum this an unhealthy, dangerous, and that “create [d] to corrupt public unlawful situation [which] tend[ed] for public officeholders some candidates office.” The by indicating charge continued the violations of law which should the jury would be involved charges find the addition, questions founded in truth.1 In certain posed investigate it was to jury were inquiring charges into the election law violations.2 Georgia Legislature provided 1 The has it shall be a misde person buy any “[b]uy sell, sell, vote, meanor or or offer to or way any buying selling, or ... be in concerned in or con or [to] money any thing purpose buying tribute óther of value for the Ann., . . vote election . .” Code 34-9907. also Ga. See § Ann., 34-1907, charge. Code Ga. included in the court’s § charge, following: fully, More part, relevant contained the OP THE “GENTLEMEN GRAND JURY! special you given “The instructions now about to be were deter- upon Judges mined and formulated all of the en joint fully after banc and are all the consultations sanctioned *3 Judges. years County
“A situation has Bibb in over the last few arisen thoroughly completely this which feels should be and investi- Court gated by Jury. the Grand . . . involved,
“In after election election where no issues and racial are possibly where there are no other issues involved which could cause any particular group honestly supporting be to concerned about or particular opposing any candidate, appears we find what an inane inexpicable pattern voting. Negro and bloc is existing “Now there an answer to the situation which should be brought light people may community to so of this understand going something is elections, what on in some of our do it. and about people are entitled to know how one is candidate or another able gather Negro to himself is thousands of votes bloc where there apparent no reason for it. Jury hereby investigate
“This Grand is instructed every every and examine into the facts of election kind in this County past years voting for the several apparent. which bloc is Although many intelligent independent among there are voters people deplore colored situation, who this it nevertheless Negro engage obvious that about of the voters in bloc 80% 85% voting. . . . you . investigate “. . matter are persistent directed to is the [T]he concerning rumors accusations the methods used in the solicita- politi- in the midst a local given The instructions were publicize judge, and the order campaign cal all local news media investigation, reporters for requested alleged bartering bloc vote. Negro of the of the vote and the tion paid public have office There are accusations that candidates for money Negro effort to large of the in an sums of to certain leaders gain get Negro -vote. There are accusations that their favor supporters paid, and these leaders candidates and their have money influencing purpose Negroes accepted, for have . . Negro people candidates. . to bloc vote certain you have been being circulated, “These and about which rumors duty charged, this Grand either true or false and is the are Jury to wherein the truth lies. determine Jury your questions this
“Some should have answered Negro vote delivered bloc elections are: Was any so, and how candidate or If who delivered it candidates? supporters was it done? What contact did the candidates their involved, Negro money group ? was have or its leaders What employed money ? if ? used ? workers were How What promises make, any, What did the if in order to obtain candidate the bloc vote?
“Now, your duty develop gentlemen, it is the facts of this acts, and if there is sufficient evidence of unlawful then all situation participating, colored, non-candidates, parties white and candidates or Jury guilty parties, be indicted so that the if should Grand may any, brought are to trial. there *4 “Furthermore, your duty bring light practices it is to to those technically law, which, yet while not violation so immoral are corrupt purposes system as to be or destructive of our your right duty elections. It is further and to determine what laws, existing laws, to are to additional amendments needed ade- quately deal the situation with which we are faced and to by Legislature. recommend enactment thereof the enormity assigned you by “The task the these instructions is surely good public recognized, citizens, but private, all both who good government system for stand an honest elective will be willing Jury every to before this and disclose come Grand fact con- cerning you being the are matters about which instructed.” charge when the the courtroom delivered. was in session following day, grand jury while in the instructions
investigating the matters set forth local court, petitioner delivered issued press a written in which he criticized the statement citizenry urged and in which he judges’ action highest when threatened judicial take notice their officers political intimidation and of voters in the persecution county guise under the of law news enforcement. This release, published which was and disseminated to the general public, stated: . Judges’ intention,
“Whatever the action . . ordering jury] investigate ‘negro ... [the block voting’ will be considered one the most deplorable examples agitation of race out of come Georgia years. Middle recent “At a time when all thinking people pre- want to good cooperation serve will and between races in Bibb County, appears action either as crude attempt at judicial intimidation of negro voters and leaders, or, agitation for a ‘negro vote’ best, issue in local politics.
“No question one would duty Jury of Grand investigate any all election law violations. However, simple justice would demand that Judge single out negro people particular . investigation. . .
“Negro will people find little difference in principle between attempted intimidation of their people by judicial summons and inquiry and attempted intimi- by physical dation demonstration such as used K.K. K. *5 will not Jury Grand
“It is that the hoped attempt any political party be high its office let community. negro people the to intimidate Superior all three of our “It incredible seems political high hold who Judges, themselves actu- nieve office, politically so are [naive] County the voters in Bibb negro ally believe to candidates any fashion, either sell their votes negro to some leaders. for office or free of community “If in the be anyone [should] It is shock- Judges. racial it should be our prejudice, style in the ing Judge charging Jury a Grand find baiting political of a for language race candidate office. politically popular judges action
“However the may time, they practice be at this employing are far dangerous anything more to free than elections they investigated. ,, want „J¡>mes t Wood The following day, petitioner delivered the'court, grand bailiff of at stationed the entrance to the jury room, “An Open County Letter to the Grand Bibb Jury,” which was grand jury made available to the petitioner’s request. This letter, implying that court’s was charge false, that in asserted opinion, County the Bibb Democratic Executive Com- organization mittee responsible corruption purchasing of votes, and that jury would be well-advised also to investigate that organization.
A July month later, 7, 1960, petitioner was cited in two counts of based on the above statements. charged citation language peti- used tioner was designed and calculated to contemptuous ridicule court, ordered by charge, and “to hamper, hinder, interfere with and *6 investigation. grand jury obstruct” the in its It also alleged that the news release was issued from the Bibb in County Office, located the Sheriff's courthouse in the had grand jury charged been and where it was deliber- ating, language and that lack of imputed judicial the integrity judges responsible to the three of the court for charge. the An alleged amendment to the citation that “in the statements and of created ... [themselves] clear, present danger and imminent to the being . . . proper conducted and ... to the administra- tion justice in Superior Bibb Court.” day
The petitioner press next the issued a further repeated substantially charges release which he the he had made in the release June and in which he asserted that his defense the contempt citation would spoken be that had he contempt the truth. The citation thereupon by was including amended a third count based on this latter statement. third The count contained the allegations same as the and, addition, other counts that charged petitioner’s presented action a clear and present danger to the handling citation against petitioner. a hearing
At before the trial judge,3 certain facts were stipulated: that petitioner’s statements were made while the grand jury was in session investigating matters suggested in charge by court; grand that the jury had before it the voting tabulations and other documents, including by endorsements certain political groups relat- ing primaries and elections petitioner in which par- ticipated as a candidate and as an supporter active other candidates; and that grand members of the jury and judges themselves had seen and read the charge that was delivered jury to the prepared was by judges the three County of the Bibb Superior Court, and was by delivered one of them. Another one of presided the three petitioner’s contempt hearing. addition, In petitioner. issued releases press response sworn stipulated response, allegations as evidence. The admitted of con- as true the absence be considered which must findings of fact trary and in the absence evidence the state- verification included the judge, the trial private capacity by petitioner made ments were petitioner county; and not as sheriff of citizen *7 of and in the outcome directly personally interested was aas citizen only private election not primary the current in the office public also as an announced candidate but November, and following the to be held general election running against petitioner the would be in election primary; who in the democratic prevailed the contestant charge was employed the language that he the believed emphasize such a nature that tended to create of impact outcome of likely upon to have drastic the issues issuing the statements primary; purpose the that his sincerely public was to inform of what he simply the believed to be the other side of the issue created the charge; and not to be that the statements were intended contemptuous investigation. of the court or to hinder the petitioner adopted The the also asserted he same distributing general public method of views the disseminating charge. did the the No grand jury court presented hearing witnesses were at the and no evidence publications was introduced to show that the resulted any actual interference or of obstruction the court or the of grand gravamen work jury.
citation, and of against the State’s case petitioner, was publishing the mere the news release and defense a contempt statement constituted of court, and in and of itself was and present danger clear to the justice. administration
The trial court,
making any
without
and
findings
with-
any reasons,
giving
out
adjudged petitioner guilty
all
imposed
counts and
days
concurrent sentences of 20
separate
of $200
fines
on each. On writ of error to the
Appeals
Court of
the convictions on counts one and
three were affirmed and
two,
the conviction on count
based on
open
letter to the
jury,
reversed.
Georgia,
Wood v.
103 Ga.
App.
S. E. 2d 261.
Georgia Supreme
After
Court,
opinion,
without
declined to review
convictions
on the first and third
counts,
petitioner sought
a writ of
certiorari
we granted.
Court which
We start with the premise that of courts to conduct in an their business way untrammeled lies system foundation our government courts necessarily must possess means punishing for con- tempt directly prevent when conduct tends the dis- charge of their functions. courts have continu- While ously authority had power maintain order in their courtrooms and to litigants trial, assure fair ques- exercise of that bare contempt power is what tioned this case. Here it is asserted that the exercise *8 contempt jail of the power, person to commit a presence an abridged utterance out of of the has court, the liberty In expression. the accused's of free this situation upon the burden Court is to define limitations this the upon contempt power according the to the of the terms Federal Constitution.
In v. Bridges California, 252, 314 U. S. this Court for first had the time occasion to review State’s exercise contempt power punish publisher of the the utilized The accused of out-of-court statement. contended abridged right speech guaran- the exercise of free that infringement by against state the Fourteenth Amend- teed scope this ment.4 To determine the of constitutional 4 88, 95; State, Alabama, v. 308 Thornhill 310 U. S. Schneider v. 353; 147, 160; Jonge Oregon, De v. 299 Near v. Minne U. S. U. S. 652, sota, 697, 707; York, v. New 666. 283 U. S. Gitlow U. S. 268 384 history the of the
protection, the Court reviewed country. in held and It power, England both by history supported “the conclusion only that [that] by framers prohibitions the laid down the unqualified the as to the other give liberty press, of were intended scope that could be countenanced liberties, the broadest clarifying society.” Id,., 265.5 Thus the orderly in an at protec- judicial power of this context of the exercise by Amendment, the Court held tions assured First publications governed to be that out-of-court were “a present danger standard, described as work- clear extremely evil ing principle that substantive must extremely degree high of imminence serious and the Id., punished.” utterances can be at 263.6 Sub- before Florida, 331, Pennekamp 328 after sequently, U. noting problems society of the discussion “[f]ree principle principle is a cardinal of Americanism —a preserve” (id., 346), all are at the Court zealous reaf- its right firmed belief that the “essential courts . . to be free of intimidation coercion . conso- [is] nant with a freedom recognition press of the must
5 Specifically, Court, thorough history after review of contempt power adoption behind both exercise of and the rejected Amendment, First the idea that interests were by applying England be accommodated the common law Bridges California, adopted. time the Constitution 314 U. S. Chafee, subject, 263-268. For source materials on this see Free Speech 1; Fox, History (1941), the United States c. of Con tempt passim; (1927), Stansbury, of Court James H. Trial of Peck (1833), passim; Thayer, Legal (3d 1956), Control Press ed. seq. Deutsch, Liberty Expression Contempt 483 et also See Court, (1943); King, Contempt L. Rev. Minn. Nelles and (1928). States, Publication the United 28 Col. L. Rev. *9 6 say present danger Court went on to that the clear and “purport standard does not to mark furthermost constitutional expression protected boundaries of . . . it no more [and does] recognize compulsion Rights.” Bridges than minimum of the a Bill of California, supra, v. at 263.
385 compatible with scope allowed the broadest Id., at supremacy of order.” 334.7 The Court’s last occa application clear and sion to consider of the type ease of the under review danger principle Craig Harney, v. 331 There U. 367. the Court held expres that to warrant sanction fires “[t]he [the merely kindles must imminent, constitute sion] likely, threat the administration of justice. The danger probable; must not be remote or it even must Id., immediately imperil.” at 376.8 principles It is these mind we consider the case before us. should Initially, however, it be noted that Georgia power courts have determined that punish contempt for of court in its state inherent and the judiciary9 Appeals ignored Court thus express imposed by Georgia limitations Legislature punishing out-of-court holding statements.10 This thus
7
Pennekamp
In
danger
the Court concluded
“the
under
. . .
judicial
record to fair
has
administration
not the
clearness
[the]
immediacy necessary
permissible public
to close the door of
comment.
closed,
S.,
When that door is
it closes all
behind
doors
it.” 328 U.
at 350.
8
cases,
presently
In none of
as is also
these
true of the one
under
review,
necessary
power
did the
find
to determine
full
protect
justice by
the State to
the administration of
use of the con
Craig
Harney,
v.
tempt power.
S.,
See
331 U.
at 373.
9
Newspapers, Inc.,
State,
Atlanta
399,
580;
v.
216 Ga.
S. E. 2d
116
State,
78; Bradley
State,
McGill
v.
Ga.
209
74 S. E. 2d
111
State,
S. E. 630. But see Townsend
App. 627,
Ga.
Ga.
deprives judgment deliberation,” prior legislative wrought by in the armor upon California, 261, at and it Bridges supra, v. is proceed. basis that we first, in Pennekamp, Bridges case differs from
This -conviction upheld petitioner’s has the court below presented pres a clear and on the basis that conduct proceedings jury, to the court danger ent punishment to warrant a standard this Court has held may state courts alleged contemptuous conduct. But “the evi preclude responsibility from our examine us furnishes a rationál basis for the to see whether it dence re Sawyer, 622, on it” 360 U. S. put characterization {In constitutionally acceptable of a 628) by the enunciation of the conduct. The describing effect standard power define the limits of state responsibility ultimate expression rests with this regarding speech freedom of 335; at Florida, supra, v. Chambers Court, Pennekamp see Kansas, Florida, Fiske v. 274 227, 228-229; U. S. v. 309 is 380, 385-386; and when it claimed that such S.U. abridged, presump been we cannot allow a liberties have power to inter validity of the exercise state tion our close examination of the substantive claim fere with presented.11 conclusion that its conduct
Despite the fair of justice, created serious evil to administration by any juror, courts, party, said obedience or resistance officer of witness, person persons writ, order, process, other or lawful rule, decree, or courts . . command of said .
Compare legislative made determination the State of Cali- Bridges California, supra, 260-261, briefly in v. discussed fornia 3.n. right abridged by is that such a has been a state When claim upon analyze in order that the court, us facts “it incumbent may right appropriate enforcement of the federal assured.” Norris Evatt, Alabama, Hooven Allison 590. See & Co. v. 294 U. S. Corrigan, 652, 659; U. Truax 325. 324 U. S. Bridges, Court of did not cite or discuss the Appeals Pennekamp or did an aware- Harney cases, display nor sup- standards enunciated those cases to ness danger.12 simply clear and port finding It *11 adopted allegations as conclusions of law the in made contempt the citation. The court did indicate not in how any publications manner the the interfered with grand jury’s investigation, or with administration justice. cases find- Unlike those elaborate ings conclusion,13 have been made support such findings. this record is barren of such prosecution called no witnesses to show that functioning jury any way disturbed; was no showing was made that the members of the jury, upon reading the petitioner’s comments in the newspapers, felt unable complete unwilling assigned their task peti- because completion.14 tioner its “interfered” with There is noth- ing the record to indicate that was ultimately not if or, it was not, peti- successful responsible tioner’s conduct was for its failure. And the extent conviction the third count upheld petitioner’s because last statement presented present clear danger contempt to the it is hearing, indeed novel that under the circumstances of this case petitioner might responsible for a substantial inter-
12Compare
findings
Appeals
Court of Criminal
of Texas
parte Craig,
in Ex
150 Tex. Cr.
ference with him. charges against made What to the public his defense what harm this hearing or interference of justice the administration inflict on might assertion Nor is there evidence opinion. in the stated record.15 either in the of law with- told, as a matter simply we have been
Thus punish per- if a State is unable support, out factual great public views on matters of expressing sons their in an being matters importance when those are considered dan- investigation by grand jury, a clear ger justice will be created. We the administration danger type find in the before us. The no such record precisely the record is one of “danger” evidenced activity pre- types envisioned Founders First senting the Amendment for ratification. “Those *12 independence who had power won our confidence of reasoning free and fearless and ideas communication of spread to political discover . . . truth.” Thornhill Alabama, v. In 88, 310 U. 95. Thornhill the also S. thinking reiterated of the Founders when it said conception broad of the First necessary Amendment supply “to the public need for information and edu- cation with respect significant to the issues of the times. . . . Freedom of dis- [Footnote omitted.] if it cussion, would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must all embrace issues about which informa- appropriate tion is needed or to enable the mem- society of cope exigencies bers with the of their Id., period.” at 102.16 15Compare Newspaper States, Toledo Co. supra, United v. note (Holmes, J., dissenting). at 425 16 City Griffin, 444; Lovell Stromberg See also 303 U. S. of
California, generally Bancroft, S. History 283 U. 359. See 2 of the (1885), United States 261. they
Men are speak please entitled on matters them; vital in judgment errors or unsubstantiated opinions may exposed, through but not course, of punishment for contempt expression. for the our Under system government, counterargument and education weapons are the expose available to these not matters, abridgment rights speech assembly. free Cf. Mr. Brandéis, concurring Justice in Whitney v. Cali- fornia, U. S. 378. Hence, absence some other showing actually designed substantive evil impede the course justice justification of the exercise of the contempt power to petitioner, silence the his utter- ances are entitled protected. to be
The respondent attempts distinguish this case from Bridges by offering, as support the Georgia court’s conclusion thát presented conduct a clear present danger to the administration justice, fact that here there alleged interference with a grand jury and an attempt not to influence or coerce a judge. In the circumstances of this we find case, argument unpersuasive.
First, important it is emphasize this case does represent a situation where an trial; individual is on “judicial there was no proceeding pending” the sense that prejudice might litigant result to one or the other by ill-considered misconduct aimed at influencing the outcome of trial or a grand jury proceeding. Compare Texas, Smith v. 128; Florida, U. Chambers v. *13 227; 309 S. Pierre Louisiana, U. v. 306 354; U. S. Tumey Ohio, 273 510; and U. Moore v. Dempsey, 261 S.U. 86. Moreover, pause we need not here to consider the variant factors present that would in a case involving petit jury. a Bridges, Neither Pennekamp nor Harney by involved a trial jury. Bridges In it was noted that “trials elections, are like be won through the use of meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper” (314
390 speech on free limitations 271), and of course the S.,
U. expression is directed when proportion a different assume investigation. grand jury a a compared toward trial as general conducting here was Rather, grand jury of the each member touching a matter into community. primary as a
Historically, body regarded been has and malicious security against hasty, the innocent function persecution; it serves the oppressive invaluable and the society standing the accuser between our minority individual, the latter be an accused, whether charge founded or determine whether other, to group, an or intimidating power upon reason was dictated Particularly ill will.17 matters personal and malice investigations political corruption impor- and is it local kept open of communication be tant that freedom the real issues not become obscured effectively has jury. operate cannot vacuum. It It are ‘grand jurors’ said that the “ancestors of our been exactly exactly first nor wit- accusers, from the neither 2 nesses; they give repute.” are to voice to common (2d ed. History English Pollock and Law Maitland, necessity society independent of an 1909), 642. The apparent in the grand jury readily informed becomes judges, For here a panel context of case. law charged officers and under state themselves elected instructing a responsibility grand jury investigate political have exercised con- corruption, power tempt repre- to hold another elected honestly held people publishing sentativé of views charge. an contrary And, contained to those Appeal Orfield, (1947), from Arrest to 144- Criminal Procedure Henkel, generally Note, 146. See Hale U. S. 59-66. See Jury Investigatory Body, The Grand 74 Harv. L. Rev. (1961).
391 effort the petitioner prove allega- truth of his tions was rejected, holding court irrelevant the truth or falsity of the facts and opinions in expressed the pub- lications. App. 103 Ga. 305, 321, 119 261, S. 2d 273. E. If petitioner could be in this manner, silenced problem to the people of Georgia State and indeed in all the States becomes evident.
The administration of the law is problem not the the judge or prosecuting attorney alone, but necessitates cooperation active anof enlightened public. Nothing gained by to be an part attitude on the citizenry of civic irresponsibility and apathy voicing their senti- community ments on problems. attack on the charge jury would been likely have have impeding influence on the outcome of the investi- gation only if the charge was manifestly so unjust it inspection.18 could stand In this sense discussion as a serves corrective force to economic and political, other influences which are inevitably present of grave in matters importance. The charge given to the jury indicated that the motivation for it was founded on but rumor, that the situation had existed for several Yet years. charge primarily against directed one group the com- munity and was given at the height of the highly impor- tant primary, which, Democratic because of their elected positions, judges both the petitioner were inter- personally apart ested from their official status. The First Amendment envisions persons be given the opportunity to inform the community of both sides of
18Compare Holmes, dissenting Mr. Justice York, in Gitlow v. New 268 673. Alabama, 88; U. See also Thornhill v. 310 U. S. Whitney California, 357; 274 Pennekamp Florida, U. S. (concurring opinion) (“To U. S. talk of a clear and arising danger [every] out of . . . criticism is idle unless the criticism impossible very makes carry real sense for a court to on the justice”). administration of *15 privilege That circumstances. issue under such
the in a ably expressed is lightly be curtailed not should 2 Limitations Cooley’s Constitutional passage Judge from of purpose he stated that 1927) where (8th 885, ed. includes the need: First Amendment publication of in the protect parties “. to free . . a right concern, secure their to public to matters of public measures, public events and of free discussion any bring time every citizen at to and enable authority bar in to the and person government upon criticism their opinion any just public by of authority which the of the exercise conduct them.” upon have conferred people voting how imagine Moreover, is difficult talk and abridgment an of may be alleviated problem is problem impor- its solution. regarding comment This group isolated only to an or some tant individual litigants lawsuit, but particular individual a is per- jury affects the entire Nation. When into forming investigatory general (problem function a its a indi- area, specific regard indicting particular without vidual, society’s by thorough is best served and interest degree of investigation, greater extensive and disin- by allowing and free impartiality terestedness is assured expression contrary suppression Consistent opinion. investigations likely pending discussion affect would mean continuing public grievances that some never could at discussed or at least not at all, the moment when public discussion is most needed. The conviction here produces its “restrictive results at the precise time when public interest the matters naturally discussed would height,” be at its suggestion can be found “[n]o the Constitution that the freedom guaranteed there speech press bears inverse ratio to the timeli- importance ness and seeking ideas expression.” Bridges v. California, supra, Thus, 269. any showing
absence of an actual interference with the undertakings grand jury, persua- this record lacks in illustrating degree sion of harm the serious to the necessary justify administration of law exercise power. Compare Craig Harney, S.U. 378; Florida, 367, 376, Pennekamp S.U.
349-350.
Finally, we told respondent that, are because petitioner County sheriff Bibb and thereby duty owes special responsibility to the court and *16 judges, its right expression his to freedom of must be more severely curtailed than of that an average citizen. Under case, circumstances of this this argument must be rejected.
First, although rely we do not on point exclusively, we noted at the of opinion outset this that there was no finding by the trial petitioner court that issued the statements in capacity sheriff; his as in fact, only evi- dence in the point record on this is the petitioner’s allega- tion in his response, accepted as by evidence the trial court by uncontroverted respondent, the state- ments petitioner were distributed a private citizen. Nowhere record, including citation as twice amended, can we find one word indicating that the prosecution on relied the fact petitioner was sheriff to show a more substantial likelihood that his conduct would disrupt the administration justice.19 of opin-
19The citation, part, amended alleged: relevant “The Respondent, Wood, James I. County, Sheriff of Bibb is a employee County full-time paid of the salary Bibb and is for his Respondent services as such officer. is an Superior officer the Bibb Court.” allegation
There is no that because he was sheriff his conduct was likely more to cause a substantive evil than would the same conduct private citizen. any spe- articulate does not Appeals of the Court
ion inquiries our responses fact,20 on cific reliance illuminat- not were argument during oral subject on this based were before us counts two Moreover, the ing. signed petitioner publications out-of-court Only capacity. his official reference without peti- did the room grand jury directly to the sent letter sheriff, and he was in the statement indicate tioner did this statement held that Appeals the Court to the administration danger present a clear finding it is difficult of this light In the the law. was sheriff petitioner the fact that how understand his news significant as to can be considered county releases. con- Appeals did
However, assuming that the Court sheriff, was a petitioner the fact that significant sider to be provides any curtailing this fact basis we not believe do speech. of free There is no evidence that right publications of his duties performance interfered with the as sheriff or with his if duties, had, he connection jury’s investigation. dealing We are not with a situation where a sheriff refuses to issue summonses or to maintain building; nor, order in the court so far as *17 shows, record did the petitioner do act which might present a harm substantive jury’s solution problem placed before it. dealing We are only here public expression. petitioner
The was an elected official and had the right to enter the political field of controversy, particularly
20The decision of Appeals, the Court of affirming overruling petitioner’s demurrer allegation quoted to the effect that in note 19 was irrelevant and should stricken, weight light be is of no in of the trial court’s finding failure to make a of fact either that the petitioner’s statements were issued in capacity official or that fact he was sheriff was relevant.
395 political where his In Sawyer, life was at stake.21 re Cf. S. 622. in play U. The role that elected officials our society imperative they makes it all the more be freely express allowed themselves on matters of current public importance.
Our examination of the content of state- they pub- ments and the circumstances which under were leads they present lished us to conclude that not did danger to the administration justice that should vitiate express his opinions freedom to the manner chosen. judgment is reversed. part Justice Frankfurter took no decision
Mr. of this case. part
Mr. Justice White took in the no consideration or this decision of case. Harlan,
Mr. Justice whom Mr. joins, Justice Clark dissenting. not danger
Whether or the clear and doctrine of Bridges California, 252, 260-263, 314 U. S. should to limit a deemed state court’s use of the con- federal tempt power employed against when a member its entourage official who has scandalized the conduct court relation to during the course a pending judicial proceeding question which I need is not reach in this case. expansive For even under the view most Bridges and its judgment offshoots the against this sheriff upheld. should be servant, official, Petitioner a civil but an elected Mitchell, like United Public case Workers hence this not a Congress U. power Court held that has the political employees circumscribe the activities of federal career public service. *18 “The Holmes wrote: Mr. Justice ago fifty years
Over to conclusions system is [judicial] of theory our by evidence only will induced in a case be reached influence, court, and not outside argument open v. print.” Patterson public talk or private of whether Court Colorado, this reason this 454, 462. For 205 U. S. on conviction based a criminal has held that repeatedly state- by extrajudicial jurors of influenced the verdict consistently with due cannot stand ments of the case Dowd, 717. But g., v. of law. E. Irvin 366 U. process only so not the infected is proceeding invalidation judicial with combat interference remedy available to right frustrate to hold would confer processes; so it And so is processes impunity. with those pro- uniformly upheld power has courts from improper themselves citations tect Sustaining this proceedings before them. upon influence against speech a claim of power freedom Patterson Colorado, S., Mr. Justice Holmes supra, U. is finished, subject wrote: “When case courts are people, propriety same criticism as other but necessity preventing interference with the course justice by statement, argument or premature intimidation hardly speech, strong can be denied.” The right free though be, absolute; right speak not when con- right to an impartial judicial proceeding, flicts accommodation must be made preserve the essence of Bridges California, both. Thus in supra, 314 atS.,U. the Court said: very “The ‘triar word connotes decisions arguments properly evidence and advanced in open Legal court. trials are like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, radio, newspaper. ... We must therefore turn particular utterances in question here and the circumstances of publication their to determine to
397 what extent evil of unfair the substantive administra likely a justice consequence, tion of and whether degree of likelihood wras sum justify sufficient mary punishment.” Florida, Pennekamp again
And 331, v. 328 U. S. 347: power protect “Courts pris- must have the interests of oners litigants unseemly before them from efforts to Craig Harney, pervert judicial action.” See 331 S. v. U. 367, 372-373. professes recognize principles. these It
holds nevertheless that sanction cannot be applied case, arguing both that “the limitations speech free a proportion assume different when expres- is sion directed toward a trial as compared grand to a jury ante, investigation,” 390, p. findings and that the of clear and present danger unsupported by are I the record. agree cannot proposition. either
I.
The grand
jury
integral part
of the judicial process,
States,
Levine v. United
State,
362
U. S. 610, 617; Gates v.
munication of a grand jury.” before 18 U. S. C. 1504. § a constitutionally permit may State
assuming by extrajudicial influenced to be petit jury, unlike jury, in Beck open explicitly left statements, question Washington, 369 U. certainly does to that course. compel them Court, But, says the this. dispute does not The Court *20 grand jury here; and “When is trial no individual general function into a investigatory its performing is par regard indicting area, specific without problem by a is best served society’s interest individual, ticular (cid:127) degre greater and a investigation, thorough and extensive by £-.:''rw- is assured impartiality of disinterestedness Ante, p. 3? opinion.” ing expression contrary free surely respect is decision with policy This, however, Th o may take a different view. legitimately which a State Georgia was attempting suggest does not that Court to insulate order judicial proceedings use mantle criticism; business from nonjudicial the transaction grand jury. is traditional function why I see no reason cannot determine for itself State by what shall and what shall not be considered More conducting of their traditional tasks. jurors rights not at over, it is not fact individual were that jury: stake in proceeding. judge charged this “if is acts, there sufficient evidence unlawful then parties participating, colored, all candi- white non-candidates, dates or should be indicted Jury guilty Grand so that if parties, there are may brought trial.” any, That statements would tend to aid rather implicated than to prejudice individuals was equally true Bridges California, supra, was rightly but afforded no significance; as well as State the individual day to a entitled court. suggested
It is not declaring that grand jurors protected shall be from improper “outside” influence Georgia departed lias improperly from her own prior law. Nor could it well be maintained that Georgia courts to judge petitioner’s undertook conduct in terms some- thing Bridges other than the clear danger Appeals standard. The Georgia held: respect “With the question whether these acts of the defendant a clear, constituted present, danger imminent or serious threat to the administra- tion of is to justice, it be noted the citation as amended charges, so the court below has its found, conviction so and the supports evidence finding.” App., 321; 103 Ga. E. 2d, 119 S. at 273. To be sure this holding preclude cannot this Court from examining evidence for itself. But this does not mean may do so with the same as if it latitude were as a state sitting court of review. The Court’s func- tions are exhausted once it is determined that federal con- stitutional standards have It is been met. of course not *21 incumbent the state courts to deal detail with the facts this Court’s earlier decisions order “display an awareness of cases,” the standards enunciated in those or make findings” “elaborate to demonstrate “how the publications interfered with the jury’s investiga- Ante, pp. tion.” 386-387.
Accepting as I do for present purposes Bridges test, the upheld this conviction if must be the record supports the present danger. inference of clear and
II. That amply is met here. public test Petitioner, official connected with court, accused, from office courthouse, Superior judges of foment- race ing hatred; misusing the criminal law persecute and to political intimidate racial minorities; and political naiveté, racial hypocrisy. He prejudice, the activities calling grand jury
compared undisguised effort to He made an Klan. of the Ku Klux declaring investigation by influence outcome of County could believe Bibb naive only politically was selling votes. It might guilty be Negroes formal statements petitioner’s stipulated both their during the course of grand jurors were read investigation. because insufficient considers this evidence
The Court of “an actual interference showing there was no unable or undertakings jurors that the “felt jury,” peti- task complete assigned because unwilling their investi- that “the completion,” with its tioner 'interfered’ if it ultimately not, gation or, successful was not responsible for its failure.” conduct was attempts Ante, cannot mean that p. Surely the Court 387. only if punishable proceedings are judicial influence danger of Speech creating sufficient they are successful. certainly may may prevent the State evil which See regardless that evil materializes. punished of whether Indeed, the York, 320-321. Feiner New 340 U. stringent is than the Court even more suggested test it whether a conviction applies determining that which “outside” state- prejudicial be set aside because of should although the jury. cases, ments In such reaching trial question rights of the accused have been whether than there has been clear infringed rather whether necessary only danger of it is infringement, their likelihood that the verdict was to show a substantial juror expresses is no answer that each affected, *22 impartial. to be fair and his that he remains able belief Dowd, S., 728; cf. Marshall v. supra, Irvin 366 U. Spano v. 310, 312-313; United 360 U. S. New States, York, attempts punishing 324. The test for 360 U. S. grand a or rather petit jury to influence should be less stringent. than more
I agree cannot with the Court that state- ments would been likely have to affect the outcome of if “only charge was manifestly so unjust Ante, inspection.” it could not stand 391. p. This is to persuasiveness discredit of argument, purports highly. Any expression value so opinion of on merits of a pending judicial proceeding is an likely impact to have In deliberations.
instance that likelihood was two factors increased which were present Bridges, not Pennekamp, Craig, in which the Court held the evidence insufficient to show clear and danger. None those cases involved statements court; officers of the and all concerned alleged statements whose interference was with the deliberations judge jury. Georgia rather than law requires the sheriff to execute and return processes court preserve orders and during order sessions courts. Ann., § Ga. Code 24—2813. Petitioner was thus a officer, very law-enforcement whose was in office courthouse where the grand jury sitting. Whether or not he issued “in capacity the statements his sheriff,” as and whether or alleged not the it, citation quality words assumed overtone of official and author- ity weight beyond lent them those of an ordinary citizen.
Of if not equal greater importance the fact that peti- tioner’s influence, statements were calculated to not a judge independence, chosen because of his integrity, and courage by experience discipline trained only him, law to deal properly evidence before but grand jury laymen chosen serve for a limited term general from the population County. It Bibb cannot be assumed with jurors, it has been with judges, Craig Harney, supra, S., they at 376, U. are all fortitude, “men of able thrive in a hardy climate.” may seriously endanger independent What delib- *23 those of a may jeopardize well judge of a
erations Show, Radio Baltimore Maryland v. jury. See petit J.). of Frankfurter, (opinion Inc., 338 U. were such themselves statements Moreover, Penne- Bridges, from distinguish this case as to nature it was here, said as Craig. It cannot and kamp, bias, hypocrisy, of racial charges Bridges, petitioner’s that naiveté, political persecution, and intimidation, political Klan, with the Ku Klux judges comparison his and criticism future adverse than threaten “did no more “if or that there expected anyway,” reasonably to be was generated by the was atmosphere, in the electricity state- [petitioner’s . . charge added . facts; at negligible.” S., 314 U. dismissed as can be ment] Pennekamp, not, as in were sheriff’s remarks 278. The rul- 348, general respect criticisms with atS., 328 U. directed toward specific attacks ings already made, but They can- pending investigation. disposition at characterized, Craig, S., 374-375, as in 331 U. not be others; activities of unlike reports unfair merely id., petitioner’s criti- case, 376-377, editorial in that investigation went to the merits squarely cisms of those con- honesty as well the motives impugned that ducting it. I do not understand how it can be denied reading grand juror, the course that judges the sheriff’s who instructed the statement grand jury bigots to undertake it were racial making discriminatory purposes political use of the laws repression, charges themselves were incred- ibly false, might well be influenced in his deliberations. last formal statement, which he and Court characterize as a “defense,” was also properly contempt. found to Defenses, constitute like charges, presented should be to a court judicially through and not press. But public fact the affirmance of peti- conviction was not tioner’s based at all allegation on the this defense interfered contempt. trial for Rather, the Court of Appeals held this further state- *24 ment had been made “in an apparent effort to hamper the jury considering charges given was still by the court.” App., 103 Ga. at 119 E. 2d, at 273. conclusion, This based on repetition of a of number petitioner’s previous allegation statements and the they true,2 were was clearly justified.
2Petitioner’s last statement was as follows: “My simply defense will spoken I Anyone have the truth. point by read, point, my who will concerning Judges’ statements charge will find those statements true. Judges wrong “The ‘Negro were to use Voting’, campaign Bloc slogan of Talmadge, phrases language and similar as with which to Jury. instruct a shocking Grand When I Judge stated ‘It is find a charging Jury style language a Grand in the a baiting race political candidate for contempt point- office’was it of court was or I ing out the truth? anyone “When I community said ‘If preju- be free of racial dice, Judges’ contempt it should be our was this or I Court was stating a truth? Judges morally wrong
“The were suddenly Jury order a Grand single Negro political out the leaders for indictments under a forgotten judges law which even have violated. IWhen said ‘It height further seems that hypocrisy to dust off an old blue [sz'c] ignored fifty years law suddenly rigid that has been for order its against minority group enforcement of voters’ was this speaking of Court or was I the truth? Judges professionally wrong “The were involving
political Judges’ charges affairs. I stated that the political ‘threaten persecution guise carried out under the of law enforcement’ and fur- appears ther that attempt ‘this action judicial either a crude as at Negro leaders, intimidation or, best, agitation voters and at for “Negro politics.’ anyone Vote” issues in local Can read [szc] Judges’ ‘influencing for indictments instructions under old voters’ honestly say political persecution law and no when threatened anyone almost all holders have ? office violated this law Can read the charge reciting political long charges against Negro rumors and leaders honestly say appearance any attempt and voters and there is no Negro anyone deny intimidation of voters and leaders? Likewise can by the fact is not saved case Finally, petitioner’s officials, elected he attacked are judges both he issue statement concerned fact that ample opportunity There was moment. political some after the the voters performance to bring judges’ cannot be “Political interest” was closed. affecting judicial the result of as an excuse used inquiry.
I affirm. would *25 political charge in the midst of local such and such an 'Negro agitates issue? races Vote’ many permit of wit- will I believe that thousands “If they testify my same conclu- behalf that drew the nesses would by Judges charge. language in their sions as I from the used say they Judges play, for intended just, “Is it or even fair intimidation, agitation contempt threat, it is no no no and therefore honest, practical publicly of court to state sincere conclusions charge. language of effects caused wrong Judges wrongs right, and the are “Two do not make a Judges’ any light contempt. for I view the action me cannot cite daring except prosecuted am to be to criticise the to believe I Judges speaking the truth. and for up by agitation hoped
“I entire ill-will and race stirred had that the permitted face-saving Judges’ charge to die after a would be Jury. presentment To I remained the Courts’ Grand this end discrediting presented. despite grossly false and conclusions silent appears Judges find me Now that the want satisfaction of it [sic] they do, they saying court, so but if are effect wrong no because the court itself finds has done the court has done wrong. no I. Wood” James
:/s/