California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Gates v. Municipal Court, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 439, 9 Cal.App.4th 45 (Cal. App. 1992):
Of course, there will be times when a judge, in effect, acts as a prosecutor--when a contempt occurs in his or her immediate presence. This is known as "direct" contempt, and implicates the ability of the judge to control the courtroom and its proceedings. If a contempt is direct, the judge presiding has the constitutional power to punish the contempt summarily. (Turkington v. Municipal Court (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 631, 635, 193 P.2d 795.)
Indirect contempt is a different matter. It takes place outside the presence of the judge. Absent some emergency, the affronted judge who prefers the charges should not sit in the contempt proceedings. (Turkington v. Municipal Court, supra, 85 Cal.App.2d at p. 636, 193 P.2d 795.)
Here, the contempt proceedings brought against Gates were unquestionably indirect. The sheriff did nothing in the presence of a court to warrant any sort of censure. His alleged misconduct was a matter concerning his administration of the county jail system, something entirely outside of the immediate presence of the municipal court. Under such circumstances, there is no question that the presiding judge should have disqualified himself. (See Turkington v. Municipal Court, supra, 85 Cal.App.2d at p. 637, 193 P.2d 795.) It is elementary that a party should not act as judge in his or her own case.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.