People v. Sweat

Defendant testified at a grand jury proceeding against his brother and received transactional immunity but subsequently refused to testify at his brother's trial. The court cited Defendant for contempt and ordered him to be taken into custody. Defendant’s brother’s trial ended in an acquittal, and Defendant was released from custody. Thereafter, the People charged Defendant with two counts of criminal attempt in the second degree for his refusal to testify at his brother’s trial. City Court dismissed the charges on double jeopardy grounds. County Court affirmed, concluding that the prior contempt proceedings were criminal in nature because the court ordered Defendant’s confinement, and in so doing relied on language in the criminal contempt provisions of the Judiciary Law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that where a court subjects a defendant to conditional imprisonment in an attempt to compel the defendant to testify and does not otherwise adjudicate the defendant to be in criminal contempt or impose punishment that is criminal in nature, double jeopardy will not bar a subsequent prosecution for contempt under the Penal Law. View "People v. Sweat" on Justia Law