Howard A. Lambert v. State of Montana

545 F.2d 87 Howard A. LAMBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 76-1037. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 26, 1976. Dennis P. Conner (argued), Great Falls, Mont., for petitioner-appellant. Charles Erdmann, Atty. (argued), Helena, Mont., for respondent-appellee. Before LAY, * WRIGHT and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. LAY, Circuit Judge: 1 This case presents the novel question as to whether due process considerations may affect the duration of confinement resulting from a state court's commitment arising from a finding of civil contempt. The petitioner, Howard A. Lambert, seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging as unconstitutional his continuing confinement in a county jail as a result of a civil contempt order entered by a Montana state judge. The federal district court found that the petition presented no constitutional questions and denied the writ. We affirm the denial of the writ of habeas, however, we remand the cause for further proceedings in the district court. 2 The facts leading to the petitioner's commitment may be briefly stated. On May 20, 1975, the State of Montana charged Lambert with aggravated assault. This charge…

This case presents the novel question as to whether due process considerations may affect the duration of confinement resulting from a state court’s commitment arising from a finding of civil contempt. The petitioner, Howard A. Lambert, seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging as unconstitutional his continuing confinement in a county jail as a result of a civil contempt order entered by a Montana state judge. The federal district court found that the petition presented no constitutional questions and denied the writ. We affirm the denial of the writ of habeas, however, we remand the cause for further proceedings in the district court.

The facts leading to the petitioner’s commitment may be briefly stated. On May 20, 1975, the State of Montana charged Lambert with aggravated assault. This charge arose from an incident on May 1, 1975, involving the alleged discharge of a weapon in the direction of two persons. After investigating, the state concluded that petitioner did not discharge the weapon but that he knew who did. On June 17, 1975, the state filed a motion to produce testimony under Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. § 95-1807 (1947). 1 On June 27, 1975, the state court dismissed the…

Concurring and Dissenting:

I would affirm the judgment of the lower court and require the appellant to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. I question at this point whether we should discuss the necessity for the hearing mentioned in the majority opinion before appellant has exhausted his remedies. Otherwise, I am in agreement with the majority’s conclusions.