[Brian_K_White]

Then you can charge him with the crime of contempt, and allow that charge to be proven or disproven through actual due process.

There is no such thing as a valid reason to skip the part where you have to prove guilt. Even for a judge. Frankly especially for a judge. Everyone else has the excuse that they aren't lawyers. What's a judges excuse?

[SatvikBeri]

Per a different article, he pled guilty to the contempt charge: https://apnews.com/article/tommy-thompson-gold-coins-shipwre...

[Auracle]

It sounds like that was a different contempt charge.

[tptacek]

You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts. This is due process.

[jrflowers]

Exactly. Seeing as there is no presumption of innocence in the US and the burden of proof is the defendant’s, it makes sense that a judge can put anyone in jail indefinitely without proving anything. If he had died in prison it would have been due process because contempt is meant to be so punitive that it acts as a deterrent to any other person that sets foot in a court room from refusing to be compelled into making self-incriminatory statements.

Now obviously this entire line of reasoning would be completely nullified if there were examples to the contrary or if any of the things mentioned had been adjudicated before but

[mauvehaus]

> Seeing as there is no presumption of innocence in the US

Wait, what? Have you served on a criminal jury in the US? There most definitely is a presumption of innocence, and the judge will remind the jury of this multiple times in the course of the trial.

The burden is on the prosecution (I.e. the state) to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source: jury duty.

[gzread]

That might be what they tell you, now explain to me how this guy was presumed innocent and jailed for 10 years.

[tick_tock_tick]

No your explicitly not required provide testimony against yourself the fifth amendment should absolutely override any "contempt" bullshit of him being willing to incriminate himself.

[AnthonyMouse]

> You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts.

I don't understand how someone could even think this.

Suppose he stole the loot and refuses to say where it is, but he really put it in a bank safe deposit box. The bank teller remembers him coming into the bank with a big pile of loot and then leaving without it, so you use the teller's statement to get a warrant to search the box, get the camera footage from the bank, etc. There are many ways to prove something without the suspect's cooperation.

How is the alternative supposed to work? The judge tells you to answer a question you'd only know the answer to if you were actually guilty and then you stay in jail for as long as you don't answer it? What are you supposed to do if you're innocent?

[Brian_K_White]

You absolutely can conduct a process to determine if one is actually guilty of that accusation the same as any other accusation, and you should, which is why it's called due process.

There are no valid fiat decrees. Everything must be somehow defensible.

The crime is not simply failing to do what a judge said. Even judges are not gods. The crime is failing to do something that they had the power to do, and that the judge or the state had the right to demand. And both of those are as arguable as anything else.

[Dylan16807]

> You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts.

Huge citation needed.

Also all you would have to prove is that they're refusing to comply. How disobedient can they really get without proof existing?