Who can overrule a court&#39;s finding of contempt? A judge has authority and broad discretion to incarcerate people for contempt-of-court. Who, besides the judge who holds a person in contempt, has authority to overturn a finding of contempt or an order of incarceration for contempt? Do higher courts hear appeals of contempt? Can a governor or president issue a pardon that overrides a finding of contempt?
In the United States, a contempt finding can be wiped out by: The judge who issued it. United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973) (“[S]o long as the district court has jurisdiction over the case, it possesses inherent power over interlocutory orders, and can reconsider them when it is consonant with justice to do so.”) An appellate court with juridiction over the judge who issued it. This was what happened with several of the contempt orders in the case depicted in The Trial of the Chicago 7. In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389, 401 (7th Cir. 1972) (“Therefore, the contempt convictions of appellants are reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.”) For convictions on charges of criminal contempt in federal courts, the president of the United States may issue a pardon that nullifies the conviction. This was what happened in the case of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of defying a court order to stop harassing Hispanic people. For convictions in state courts, a governor may be able to issue a pardon.
If there is a divorce case and through the process of declaring a parties financial position it comes out that one of the parties has dodged a bit of tax can that evidence be held against them? Generally speaking yes, unless the relevant prosecutor's office provides a grant of immunity from prosecution for the matters disclosed, which basically never happens in a divorce case or ordinary civil case. This is why it is sometimes necessary to invoke the 5th Amendment in the context of a civil case. Does a judge have the duty to report any law-breaking that arises in civil cases No. It isn't improper for a judge to report law-breaking that is observed in the course of litigation before that judge, but the judge has no duty to do so (absent some very specialized exceptions like treason), and, in practice, rarely does report law-breaking not directly before the judge to evaluate. In contrast, in criminal cases, during the pre-trial phase of a case (and especially in the pre-arrest phase of a case), a judge often has a duty to keep knowledge of crimes obtained in that way secret until it is disclosed by the prosecution (unless the prosecution improperly fails to disclose something that it is required to disclose). This is so that criminals aren't &quot;tipped off&quot; by a judge of an impending arrest. A judge in Colorado was recently prosecuted and removed from the bench for a disclosure of that kind. or is a civil case confidential between the two parties? A judge can seal a civil case, or limit public access to certain documents, but that is the exception and not the norm and has to overcome constitutional protections of the public's right to public trials that media organizations frequently enforce successfully. Confidentiality between the parties can only be imposed for &quot;good cause.&quot; Hiding the fact that you cheated on your taxes from tax collection agencies does not constitute good cause. Footnote Most U.S. jurisdictions have an ethical rule for lawyers that prohibits them from threatening to take administrative or criminal actions to gain advantage in a civil case, although the exact details vary quite a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This does not apply to clients of lawyers acting unilaterally and without guidance from their lawyers.
Why does someone need to know? Supreme Court decisions are effective to all cases at trial or on direct appeal when decided, so long as the issue it resolves are raised in the trial court. Judges generally don't suspend cases because a case that could change the law is pending. If the decision comes out shortly after the trial, the judge can overturn the result in a post-trial motion. If the decision comes out later, the issue can be raised on appeal. A smart plaintiff raises favorable issues that could be decided in his or her favor in pending appellate cases to leave the door open for that possibility. If the law is unsettled, the judge makes a best guess about how the higher courts will resolve it and is effectively free to choose either outcome knowing that the result is uncertain. If there is binding precedent on an issue at the time, the judge must follow it, even if there is a likelihood that it could be reversed on appeal. People are presumed to know the law, but it's not possible to know what future decisions the Supreme Court of the USA will make. Therefore, the existing written precedents should be relied upon in their present form, and the case at trial should continue without delay. This kind of consideration is mostly relevant only in cases of &quot;qualified immunity&quot; and in certain kinds of federal habeas corpus petitions (which collaterally attack criminal convictions affirmed on direct appeal). In those cases, law enforcement conduct is not punished, and judicial decisions are not overturned, unless there was clearly established law at the time the decision was made that made the law enforcement conduct unconstitutional, or make the judicial decision a wrongly decided one. In all other contexts, what was believed to be the law at the time an action was taken, or a judicial decision was made, doesn't matter.
how are judges in the UK appointed to cases in general? The Resident Judge or the Presiding Judge of the relevant court allocates cases to their fellow judges. Residing Judges sit at specific courts (e.g. all Crown courts will have a Resident Judge). Presiding Judges oversee specific circuits (e.g. the Western circuit). [how was the judge appointed] to this case in particular? All extradition cases start off at Westminster Magistrates Court, therefore Vanessa Baraitser, the District Judge assigned to this case, would have been given the case by order of Emma Arbuthnot, the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales. This is because the Chief Magistrate is the Resident Judge for that court, although in reality I presume she didn't personally make the decision to assign the case. The case listing system may simply have picked Ms. Baraitser as the next available judge to hear this case.
Criminal conviction by a judge after acquittal by a jury would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. A criminal conviction involves both a finding of fact and the application of the law, and a judge (unless this is a bench trial) doesn't find facts, he makes judgements of law. Overturning an acquittal after a jury trial would thus be in essence a whole new trial (moreover one where the defendant was not given a renewed opportunity to defend himself).
If a random attorney at the direction of a judge has standing to challenge actions within executive branch jurisdiction, why didn’t a judge prosecute the banks guilty of criminal fraud leading to the 2008 financial crisis when Obama ordered the DOJ to not prosecute? This is a misunderstanding of the issue. Judge Sullivan is not &quot;prosecuting&quot; Mr. Flynn. Judges do not have the power to prosecute people. Instead, Sullivan (argues that he) is trying to decide whether or not to grant the government's motion to dismiss. Normally, this is a very open and shut question: If the government doesn't want to prosecute someone, then it would make no sense to try and keep the case in court, so it's typical for these dismissals to be rubber stamped. The complication in this particular case is that Mr. Flynn has already pleaded guilty. Because he was in federal court, on a federal charge, pleading guilty is a rather involved process. His plea included very explicit statements under oath about the specific conduct he allegedly committed, and that conduct directly matches up with specific required elements of the alleged crime. After Mr. Flynn had already made those statements under oath, the government told Judge Sullivan that it did not believe it had enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Sullivan now wants to hold a hearing to determine whether he can or should believe the government, and if not, what if anything he can or should do about it. Finally, the DC Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Sullivan to immediately grant the dismissal. Sullivan is now appealing that order. In this sense, then, the dispute is not directly about Mr. Flynn's case, but rather about the level of discretion to which Judge Sullivan is entitled in performing his official duties. By issuing the writ, the DC Circuit necessarily determined that Judge Sullivan was not legally entitled to hold the hearing which he wanted to hold. That is what the en banc re-hearing is about.
The judiciary is an arm of the state There is no “power grab” by the judiciary: they are simply exercising the Constitutional power they have to act as a court of record (given to them in the Supreme Court Act) and resolve disputes. In the UK (among many others), judges get paid to interpret the law - both statute and customary law - weigh the evidence and make decisions. You seem to think this isn’t their job but it is precisely their job. In general, judges try to leave their personal and political opinions outside the court, however, they are human and mistakes are sometimes made, from bias or otherwise. That’s why there is an appeals system - one judge has made a decision, 3 or more others review it. The Grainger test is as much a part of the law of the UK as the Equality Act is. It can be changed by an act of Parliament or it can be changed by a future appellate court at the same level or higher in the hierarchy. Parliament’s role is to write laws of general applicability, the administrations role is to administer those laws, including making decisions about individuals, the judiciaries role is to decide specific controversies by interpreting the law and providing guidelines for consistent decision making by future judges and officials.
If you mean who decides what is good behavior, congress does. Congress would impeach a judge if he/she needed to be removed. With respect to federal judges, under Article I of the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach, and the Senate the power to hold a trial to determine whether removal is appropriate. The House can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. However, a judge may only be removed from office following a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer