Is it possible to end up in prison due to failure to appear in court for a civil matter? This is a question about the law in USA, and is regarding civil cases. This question is only regarding cases where a civilian, or a non-governmental organization, has sued another civilian. With this question I am not interested of cases related to traffic tickets or fines given by a police department (some law blog I was reading included these in an article about civil cases). The questions I wanted to ask are: Is it possible for the defendant to end up in prison if they fail to appear in the court for this kind of matter? If failure to appear does not always lead to prison, what are the kind of situations in which it would lead to that?
Prison v. Jail First of all, failure to appear (in the U.S.) would led to incarceration in jail (a local government facility allowing for detention typically up to one year for misdemeanors), rather than prison (which is typically a state or federal government institution incarcerating people for a year or more pursuant to a felony conviction). A jail is typically run by the county sheriff or a city's chief of police. A prison is typically run by a warden appointed by a state department of corrections. A civil court never sends anyone to prison for failure to appear, or for that matter, as a sanction for any purpose. Even a multi-year remedial civil contempt sanction is served in jail rather than prison. When Can One By Jailed For Failure To Appear In A Civil Matter? Second, failure to appear can only lead to incarceration if: (1) the person who fails to appear in either subject to a subpoena requiring that person to appear, at a date and time certain in a particular place, as a witnesses, that is personally served upon them (or where personal service is waived by the person) (this is the same in civil and criminal practice), or (2) the person is served with a judgment creditor's interrogatories to be answered in person (which are the moral equivalent of a subpoena) and must be served in the same manner, or (3) the person fails to deliver a person pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus (which is the moral equivalent of a contempt of court finding and very uncommon) that has been served in the same manner, or (4) the person has been personally served (or has personally waived such personal service) with an order to show cause (at a specific date, time and place) why they should not be held in contempt of court. The precise name of this document can vary and could also be called a "writ" or a "citation", rather than an "order to show cause". Citations for traffic offenses or other ordinance violations or civil offenses are functionally equivalent to (4). Of course, in each of the cases (1) to (4) you obviously aren't incarcerated at the moment that you fail to appear as the whole problem is that you aren't there. Instead, in each of those cases, a warrant for your arrest is issued by the court and you aren't actually incarcerated until law enforcement manages to arrest you before the warrant is vacated because you do appear, or the warrant is vacated by stipulation of the parties approved by the court, or is vacated because the matter you were required to appear for is now moot (e.g. in the case of judgment creditor's interrogatories, the judgment is paid in full). How Long Is One Incarcerated For Failure To Appear? In cases (1)-(4) the duration of incarceration is only from the time of arrest until the person can be brought before the court at the soonest possible time to do whatever they were supposed to have shown up in person to do and failed to appear at, often a matter of a few hours and rarely more than a long weekend. These forms of incarceration are for the purpose of compelling your appearance in court by force, not for punishing someone for not showing up. Other Reasons People Are Incarcerated In U.S. Civil Courts One can also be incarcerated in a civil court because one is found to be in contempt of court after one has appeared and been found by the court in an in person hearing to be in contempt of court, but incarceration for contempt of court itself, as opposed to failure to appear at a contempt of court hearing, is never a sanction imposed for failure to appear. Other Sanctions For Failing To Appear Also, keep in mind that failing to appear can result in other consequences besides incarceration, the most common of which is to be found in default causing you to lose you legal case or whatever other legal matter was pending as a result of your failure to appear. Another common sanction for failure to appear (e.g. at a deposition when you are not under subpoena) is a monetary sanction to compensate others for the attorneys' fees incurred due to your non-attendance, and a determination that facts that could have been established if you had appeared will be deemed to be true regardless of reality. Civil Law Systems Compared In "civil law" countries whose legal systems are not based upon the English common law, judges do not have a generalized contempt of court power and the scheme by which people are sanctioned for failing to appear in civil matters is different.
The only way in which you could be &quot;incorrectly listed as a defendant&quot; is if somehow your name was typed in as a party (there would be a glaring gap, that no paragraph of the complaint says anything about you as a defendant). Assuming the situation is nothing so bizarre as a typo, you are a defendant. Whether or not you are liable in this case is a matter of fact and law, and the plaintiff's attorney has probably done due diligence in suing everybody imaginable. Perhaps the plaintiff lied to his attorney about material facts (read the complaint); or perhaps there is a credible legal theory under which you would be liable (read the complaint). Your attorney will take care of your problems, to the best of his ability. He may be able to persuade the plaintiff's attorney that they stand no realistic hope of winning and some chance of getting smacked for pointlessly involving you. If the plaintiff's attorney isn't persuaded by the argument, your attorney could submit the legal arguments as a motion to dismiss. If the judge is not persuaded (at this stage), you (your attorney) will have to counter the arguments presented at trial.
Probably not. It appears that in the case in question, your lawyers, while they were representing you, agreed to a protective order that kept certain information including settlement offers made to them by the opposing parties' lawyers (even if those offers were rejected) confidential. You are bound by the agreements made by your lawyers if they are your lawyers at the time, even they later cease to be your lawyers. So, if you were to make the disclosure of this information subject to a protective order, the court involved could hold you in contempt of court and issue sanctions (including fines and incarceration) for failing to honor the court order to seal the case, because this protective order was binding upon you, because you agreed to it through your lawyers who were acting as your agents at the time. The fact that you are no longer represented by those lawyers doesn't vacate the protective order. CAVEAT: This is an interpretation of the facts made with incomplete information. A truly reliable answer would require review of the exact documents in the case filed with the court which is beyond the scope of Law.SE.
The appellate court gets the trial transcript which includes all the testimony (and exhibits or descriptions/photos of them) and the trial court's rulings. Also, each side presents an appeal brief, which will generally include a statement of facts, pointing out ones it thinks favorable to its views. In civil cases a jury may be asked/instructed to give yes/no answers to a series of questions, but this is not normal in criminal cases. An appellate court can (and sometimes does) rule that there was not sufficient evidence to permit any reasonable jury to convict; to that extent it can rule on questions of fact. But, as the comment by ohwilleke mentions, an appellate court does not hear new evidence. It can overturn the conviction and send the case back for a new trial, and in such a new trial additional evidence may be introduce at the trial court level.
This is a civil case, taking away your freedom is only for criminal offenses. Not paying your bills is not a criminal offense. It is up to the creditor to look for your assets, etc. A court can make you show up and answer questions about your assets and income. While you are in court the judge can make you give your gold watch to your creditor. Outside the parameters of the question there are circumstances like failure to pay child support when you do have the funds that can lead to incarceration. In some places you can be jailed for contempt of court if the court requires your presence to let the creditor have the ability to try to get access to your assets and you do not show up.
For most civil matters the answer is "no". Small claims court is special since there are restrictions on using attorneys, and in that context, it depends on the rules. In Indiana, the answer in their manual is no Small Claims Rule 8 allows a person to appear at trial and, if he or she chooses, represent himself or herself and avoid the cost of hiring an attorney. However, a person is allowed to hire an attorney and have the attorney appear with him or her at the trial. A person who has power of attorney for another person may not represent that person in court. "Have the attorney appear with him or her at the trial" is pretty unclear, since it doesn't say whether the attorney can represent them. Rule 8(C)(1) states that "A natural person may appear pro se or by counsel in any small claims proceeding", which clarifies that they don't just mean "have at your side". In Minnesota, the answer is more emphatic "no": A power of attorney does not authorize a nonlawyer to file a claim, appear, or in any other way “represent” a natural person in conciliation court. As for allowing attorneys in small claims court, Attorneys are only allowed to represent parties in conciliation court with permission of the court (emphasis added). The situation in California is somewhat of a hybrid, but as I read it, it means that the incapacitated person is out of luck, which strikes me as surprising. They say Self-representation is usually required. There are, however, several exceptions to this general rule: If the court determines that a party is unable to properly present his or her claim or defense for any reason, the court may allow another individual to assist that party. The individual who helps you can only provide assistance—the individual’s participation in court cannot amount to legal representation, and the person can’t be an attorney. So this is most unlike Indiana is that you can't have an attorney, and all the person can do is "assist". So unless they just waive the rules, this means that if the individual is incapacitated, they cannot have recourse to small claims court.
At the federal level, per 18 USC 751, escaping is a crime. In United States v. Allen, 432 F.2d 939 it was held that an arrest need not be lawful in order for an escape to be illegal; Laws v. US states that "This court has said that a sentence imposed for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 is 'not affected by the validity of the sentences being served at the time of the escape'", giving numerous citations. I don't find cases where the escapee was exonerated; prosecutors have the discretion to not prosecute for committing a crime, so it would be hard to find a case where the legality of such a conviction was upheld (also, hard to find a jury willing to convict in such circumstances).
They are two different courts, with different standards of proof. In a criminal court, the standard of proof is "guilty beyond any reasonable doubt". In a civil court, the standard of proof is "more likely guilty than not guilty". Actually, in a civil court it's not "guilty", it's often "liable for damages". It's obvious that there will always be cases where the evidence lies somewhere between these two. Consider what the reasons for both court cases are: In the first case, it's the state against you. The state doesn't suffer any injustice if you are not convicted, and the state is very powerful, that's why the standard of proof is high. In a civil court, you have often two private persons fighting it out. If you are correctly accused of breaking my arm and I sue you for damages, then if you are not convicted, I am suffering a broken arm and all the associated pain and cost. A standard as high as in a criminal court would be entirely unfair towards the victim.