Replies

Here are the rules concerning Congress, the Department of Justice and how the system will work. I have also provided you with direct links to webpages.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mn/criminal_proc.html

“Criminal Procedures
Federal Laws vs. State Laws

Federal laws, or statutes, are created by the United States Congress to safeguard the citizens of this country. Some criminal acts are federal offenses only and must be prosecuted in U.S. District Court. Other criminal acts are offenses under both federal and state law; so, in those cases, federal and county attorneys must decide if the offender should be tried in U.S. District Court or state court.
Felony or Misdemeanor

Criminal acts fall into two categories: felonies and misdemeanors. Felonies are offenses that may result in prison sentences of more than one year, while misdemeanors carry sentences of one year or less. The United States Congress decides which criminal acts are felonies and which ones are misdemeanors. State legislatures make those determinations for criminal acts that violate state law.
When Someone is Suspected of a Federal Crime...

1. Complaint and Arrest Warrant — Law enforcement obtains a Warrant for Arrest of the alleged offender. The warrant is based on an Indictment (see below) or a Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court. An Affidavit, signed by a law enforcement officer, usually accompanies the Complaint. The Affidavit explains the crime committed as well as the role of the accused in that crime. In other words, the Affidavit is used to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime.

2. Initial Appearance — As soon as practicable after arrest, the alleged offender must be granted an Initial Appearance before a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge advises the accused of his or her rights and determines if he or she has the financial ability to hire an attorney or if a public defender must be appointed. The Magistrate Judge also sets release conditions, including any bond. At the same time, a federal prosecutor, known as an Assistant United States Attorney, may ask that the defendant be detained.

3. Detention Hearing — If the alleged offender is detained, a Detention Hearing must be held within three working days. At that hearing, the Magistrate Judge listens to evidence about the accused’s risk of flight or danger to the community. The Magistrate Judge then decides if the accused should be detained or released pending trial.

4. Preliminary Hearing — Within 10 days of arrest on a Complaint, the accused also has the right to a Preliminary Hearing, during which an Assistant U.S. Attorney may offer testimony to establish probable cause, and the defense attorney may provide evidence on behalf of the accused. If the Magistrate Judge overseeing the hearing finds sufficient probable cause as to the commission of the crime as well as the accused’s role in it, the accused is bound over for further proceedings by a grand jury. Note, if the grand jury returns an Indictment against an alleged offender before arrest is made, a Preliminary Hearing is not necessary.

5. Grand Jury — The final decision to prosecute a federal criminal case rests with a grand jury. A federal grand jury is comprised of 23 randomly selected citizens from across the judicial district (This judicial district encompasses the entire State of Minnesota). Those selected to serve on the grand jury do so for a few days each month for approximately one year, after which a new grand jury is selected by the U.S. District Court.

6. Indictment Sought — Instead of filing a Complaint, or after filing a Complaint, Assistant U.S. Attorneys appear before the grand jury to establish probable cause that a particular person committed a federal felony. They do this by calling witnesses and presenting evidence obtained with Grand Jury Subpoenas. Defense attorneys are not allowed to appear before the grand jury; the accused does not need to testify before the grand jury; and the work of the grand jury is to be kept secret.

7. Indictment Returned — If the grand jury decides the evidence presented establishes probable cause, it issues an Indictment against the accused. At least 16 of the 23 members of the grand jury must be present to conduct business, and at least 12 jurors must vote to indict. The Indictment is called a True Bill. If the grand jury does not find sufficient probable cause, it returns a No Bill. In a misdemeanor case, or in a felony case where the accused has waived indictment and has agreed, instead, to plead guilty, no case is presented to the grand jury. In those instances, an Information, which is a document outlining probable cause, is filed with the U.S. District Court.

8. Arraignment — Within 10 days from the time an Indictment or Information has been filed and arrest has been made, an Arraignment must take place before a Magistrate Judge. During an Arraignment, the accused, now called the defendant, is read the charges against him or her and advised of his or her rights. The defendant also enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. If necessary, a trial date is selected and a schedule set for motion hearings, which may include in-court arguments as to suppression of evidence, etc. Note, the Federal Speedy Trial Act dictates the defendant has right to trial within 70 days from his or her initial appearance in U.S. District Court.

9. Plea Agreement — Defendants are presumed innocent until they admit guilt or are proven guilty. If a defendant pleads not guilty, a trial takes place unless a Plea Agreement can be reached between the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the defense attorney. In those instances, the defendant must offer a change of plea before a U.S. District Court Judge, who needs to approve the terms of the Plea Agreement.

10. Trial — A trial is heard before a jury of citizens selected at random from across the judicial district and overseen by a U.S. District Court Judge. At trial, the Assistant U.S. Attorney must — and the defense attorneys may — call witnesses and present evidence (The government has the burden of proving the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt). Afterwards, the jury must unanimously decide the verdict. If the defendant is found not guilty, he or she is released. If he or she is convicted, however, the pre-sentencing process begins.

11. Pre-Sentencing — After the entry of a guilty plea or the unanimous finding of guilt by a jury following trial, the U.S. Probation Office collects information about the defendant and crime victims and supplies it, along with a recommendation for sentence, to the U.S. District Court Judge as part of a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.

12. Sentencing — Approximately eight weeks after the entry of a guilty plea or a jury finding of guilt, the U.S. District Court Judge imposes sentence. The sentence may include incarceration in a federal prison; a term of supervised release, formerly called probation; the imposition of a monetary fine; and/or an Order of Restitution directing the defendant to pay the crime victims money lost or expenses incurred due to the offense.

13. Appeal — The defendant may appeal either the finding of guilt or the sentence or both. To do so, he or she must file with the sentencing court a Notice of Appeal within 10 days from the sentencing, or Judgment, date. Note, if the defendant pled guilty, generally only the sentence may be appealed. Also, sometimes, the defendant gives up, or waives, the right to appeal in the Plea Agreement.”

____________________________________________________________

http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-congress

Oxford Guide to the US Government: Contempt of Congress

Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US Government Guide

Contempt of Congress is any improper attempt to obstruct the legislative process, usually by a refusal to provide information that Congress has requested. The contempt power is critical to Congress’s ability to investigate the activities of the executive branch or any issue about which it is considering enacting legislation. Congress can use contempt citations against witnesses who refuse to testify or to produce required evidence. Those found guilty of contempt of Congress may go to prison.

There are three methods of prosecuting for contempt of Congress. First, Congress can try contempt cases itself. In 1848 and 1871 the Senate did just that, imprisoning newspaper reporters in the Capitol for not revealing the source of the Senate secrets they had published. Congress can also turn contempt cases over to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. However, juries have often acquitted individuals charged with contempt, especially if it appears that the congressional committee abused its power. For example, between 1950 and 1966 the House Un-American Activities Committee issued 133 contempt citations, but only nine people were convicted. Finally, the Senate or House can also file civil charges of contempt. Using this procedure, a federal judge determines whether a question asked by Congress was legitimate. If the judge orders a witness to answer and the witness refuses, then the witness would be in contempt of court and could be fined or imprisoned. For example, during the Watergate investigation the House cited G. Gordon Liddy for contempt for refusing to testify before a House committee. A federal judge gave Liddy a suspended six-month sentence.

The Supreme Court has upheld Congress’s power to punish for contempt but has specified some limitations against its unreasonable use. In the case of McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927, the Court ruled that “a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information…. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain that which is needed.”

Although Congress has issued hundreds of contempt citations against witnesses, it has found only one executive agency head in contempt. In 1982, the House voted Environmental Protection Agency administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford in contempt for refusing to provide documents that the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation had requested. She later agreed to give the documents to the committee. Other actions against cabinet members and high-ranking officials have been resolved before either the House or Senate voted.

See also Investigations, congressional Sources

James Hamilton, The Power to Probe: A Study of Congressional Investigations (New York: Vintage, 1976)

Gale Encyclopedia of US History:
Contempt of Congress

Top

Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

The investigative power of Congress and its role as policymaker would be hindered without the ability to compel testimony and documents from witnesses. Just as a failure to comply with a court order can subject individuals to a charge of contempt of court, the failure to comply with a congressional order can lead to a charge of contempt of Congress. In 1982, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Anne M. Gorsuch refused to provide documents subpoenaed by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding Superfund enforcement. The committee passed a resolution citing Gorsuch for contempt, and the resolution passed the full House. Had Gorsuch continued to withhold the documents, the referral to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution could have resulted in a sentence of one year in prison and a fine of $1,000.

The procedures and penalties for contempt of Congress are set by statute, 2 U.S.C. 192. While the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the congressional contempt power, the Supreme Court held in Anderson v. Dunn (1821) that such power is implicit in Congress’s function as a legislature. Congress may cite individuals for contempt for failing to appear before Congress, refusing to provide testimony or documents to Congress, or bribing or libeling a member of Congress. There are, however, some limitations on Congress’ power. The Supreme Court established in a series of cases surrounding McCarthyism that a congressional committee may only investigate areas in which it is empowered to legislate and may only issue contempt citations in areas where the committee exercises jurisdiction.

Congress has long used contempt citations as a political tool. The very first contempt citation by the Senate involved the attempted silencing of William Duane, editor of the Democratic-Republican newspaper the Aurora. Duane had published an article in the last term of Federalist president John Adams, giving the full text of a bill to establish a Federalist-dominated committee to review Electoral College ballots in the election of 1800 and incorrectly asserting that the bill had been passed by the full Senate. After initially submitting to congressional authority, Duane went into hiding after being cited for contempt. Upon the election of a new Antifederalist-dominated Congress and the government’s move to Washington, D.C., Duane resurfaced in Philadelphia and returned to publishing his newspaper. In recent history, congressional committees have often brought contempt charges against high-level executive officers, only to have the full House or Senate reject the charges. Among these contempt citations was a charge in 1998 by the Republican-dominated House Government Reform and Oversight Committee against Attorney General Janet Reno for failing to appoint an independent counsel to investigate alleged campaign finance improprieties of the Clinton-Gore 1996 campaign.

Bibliography

Goldfarb, Ronald L. The Contempt Power. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.