U.S. v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1984)

Facts: Chokwe Lumumba (“Lumumba”) represented Bilal Sunni-Ali in a trial before Judge Duffy. On April 13, 1983 and June 8, 1983 Lumumba repeatedly interrupted and showed disrespect in other ways to Duffy, J. during the trials, following which Duffy, J. convicted Lumumba in criminal contempt. Duffy, J. prepared a memorandum setting forth the circumstances of criminal contempt, but the sentencing came to Judge Sweet. Lumumba’s attorneys motioned before Sweet, J. to dismiss the contempt citation or at least to have a hearing. Sweet, J. denied the motions stating that he lacked the authority to retry the merits of the conviction or to review Duffy’s J. choice of the summary procedure. Sweet, J. sentenced Lumumba to three years …show more content…
courts. (2) Lumumba claims that Duffy J. erred in applying the summary contempt after waiting until the conclusion of trial to issue the contempt adjudication. This violates Lumumba’s due process right.

Holding: (1) The district judge properly rejected Lumumba’s argument regarding diplomatic immunity. (2) Lumumba is entitled to be heard on his allegedly contemptuous behavior. Thus, his sentence should be reconsidered. The case remanded to Sweet, J. who needs not to hold a full-blown trial, but Lumumba should be allowed to explain his actions.

Rule: Essentially, the court made no new rules, since all argumentation and analysis was referring to various cases. The court stressed out once again that in case certain judge wants to hold an attorney liable for contempt it should issue the relevant decision, dismiss such attorney and suspend the trial until the new attorney is appointed. In case the sentencing of the contemptuous attorney is relayed to another judge the latter must have a due process with a right to be heard before