What is the Maximum Sentence for Contempt of Court? (USA) Is there a maximum sentence that a New Jersey Superior Court Judge can impose on someone for contempt of court? I understand that there are different types of contempt of court, so here's a made-up example to illustrate the question. Suppose person X (New Jersey resident) is ordered via subpoena to produce the key to a safe. (Suppose here that the safe is otherwise impenetrable without a key.) X admits that he has a key, but refuses to produce it. The judge threatens X with jail time until X produces the key. X continues to refuse. X is arrested and thrown in jail. At this point, would there be any limit on how long the judge could keep X in jail? I have looked through the NJ Statutes as well as other Stack Exchange questions, but I haven't found an answer on my own. In particular, this question is similar but isn't specific to New Jersey; it also isn't clear to me whether my example is one of civil, or criminal, contempt of court.
It's a maximum of 18 months imprisonment for disobeying a court order. Contempt of court is defined by the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice at section 2C:29-9.a, which includes: A person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if the person purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order... The sentencing for which may be found at section 2C:43-6.4: In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.
Prosecutors have discretion The plea bargain that a prosecutor makes with an alleged criminal is up to the prosecutor subject to the limitations in Brady v United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970). Plea bargains are subject to the court’s approval but there’s nothing here that would obviously derail this deal. However, the FBI is not the only player here. The DA’s in each of the “7 [US] states” are going to want to prosecute as well.
As explained in the comments, a sentence is more than one year is the operational definition of a felony in many context concerning the collateral consequences of a sentence. For example, a sentence of more than one year causes a person to be deportable, while one of less than one year generally does not. Another consequence is that the offense will count as a prior felony in the event of a new conviction which can result in a much longer sentence for a subsequent offense. In many states, a prior felony means losing the right to vote and the ability to have or obtain a license in many professions. Sentences of more than one year are also generally served in a state prison rather than in a county jail. Both of these factors make a sentence of 366 days significantly more serious than one of 364 days.
The maximum determinate sentence for anything (outside of military law) was 21 years (in 2013 increased to 30 years for serious terrorism offenses). The law on penalties §43 says that In a sentence of detention, a time frame is set which should not normally exceed 15 years and cannot exceed 21 years. Breivik was tried once for the crime of intentional murder, and convicted -- 21 years is the sentence. I believe that Norwegian law does not have the "multiple counts" system that the US has whereby an act can be punished under multiple sections of the law or for each victim. He performed an act of killing with very many victims, so no penalty longer than 21 years is allowed.
Is there any precedent saying that a witness is immune to any crime he admits to while being a witness? Yes, there is precedent, but it unlikely to apply to your situation. The applicable type of immunity is called witness immunity. There are two types of witness immunity, transaction (aka blanket immunity) and use immunity. Both must be granted by the prosecution. Check out this article on Nolo-Legal for a description of the two: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/immunity-exchange-testimony.html Immunity can apply to a civil case, but the prosecution's grant of immunity must specifically say so. See Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263–64 (1983). While there is authority for witness immunity in civil cases, the witness would be unlikely to get it. Generally, the prosecution provides immunity when they need testimony from a witness and that witness asserts their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. By providing immunity, the prosecution removes the 5th amendment concerns and the witness can then be compelled to answer the prosecution's question. This process is explained in more detail in this article. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-prosecutors-grant-immunity-what-does-immunity-grant-mean-the-witness.html Given the way in which immunity is granted to witness, it is most likely to happen in civil cases where the government—not a private party—needs a witness's testimony. For example, a civil case brought by the government for a consumer protection, anti-trust, or securities law violations against a company. Also, the witness might want to know the statute of limitations for under-aged possession of alcohol. If it lapsed there would be no need for immunity.
The linked news story says that the journalist was detailed as a material witness. according to 18 USC § 3144 If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person ... Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. No specific time seems to be specified for which detention is allowed. What a court would consider &quot;reasonable&quot; would no doubt depend on the specific circumstances.
You do not automatically have the right to trial by jury in traffic court. The government only requires courts to allow trials by jury when it is not a petty offense. Refer to Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968): Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses, Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966). ... In the federal system, petty offenses are defined as those punishable by no more than six months in prison and a $500 fine. Since most traffic violations do not involve jail time and do not exceed a $500 fine, most traffic violations are also not eligible for jury trials as defined by the government. Presumably the law is built this way so as not clog the courts with a bunch of people demanding jury trials for very minor infractions that need not be tried by jury. The Washington State Civil Rules you reference do not grant any further rights to trial by jury not already granted otherwise. It can be quickly summed up as saying that trial by jury rights cannot be revoked, and outlines how one should go about requesting a trial by jury. If you were fined more than $500 and were denied a jury trial, consult an attorney in the area about the situation.
Your wife is legally obligated to attend the deposition. If she does not attend, the Court can summarily hold her in contempt of court, issue a warrant for her arrest, and hold her in jail until a deposition can be rescheduled and held. She can be required to answer questions under oath at the deposition for the duration shown on the subpoena, or if no duration is specified, typically for up to six or seven hours. It is not her job to decide if it is a waste of time or not.