Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A. - 481 U.S. 787, 107 S. Ct. 2124 (1987)

Rule:

Private attorneys appointed to prosecute a criminal contempt action represent the United States, not the party that is the beneficiary of the court order allegedly violated. Criminal contempt proceedings arising out of civil litigation are between the public and the defendant, and are not a part of the original cause. The prosecutor is appointed solely to pursue the public interest in vindication of the court's authority. A private attorney appointed to prosecute a criminal contempt therefore certainly should be as disinterested as a public prosecutor who undertakes such a prosecution.

Facts:

In settlement of a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Louis Vuitton, S. A., a French leather goods manufacturer, against Sol Klayminc, his wife Sylvia, his son Barry (the Klaymincs), and their family-owned businesses, Karen Bags, Inc., Jade Handbag Co., Inc., and Jak Handbag, Inc., the Klaymincs agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting them from further activity which would infringe the trademark of Louis Vuitton, S. A. After submission of an affidavit by counsel for Louis Vuitton, S. A., the District Court found probable cause to believe that Klaymincs had engaged in conduct in violation of the injunction, and appointed counsel for the Louis Vuitton, S. A., as special counsel to represent the United States in an investigation and possible prosecution of a criminal contempt action. Subsequently, the District Court signed an order directing the alleged trademark infringers to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt for violating the permanent injunction. The Klaymincs, but were denied, motions opposing the order to show cause and the appointment of an interested party's counsel as special prosecutors. The Klaymincs were convicted of criminal contempt or of aiding and abetting the criminal contempt. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Klaymincs’ contention that the appointment of Louis Vuitton, S. A.’s attorneys as special counsel violated their right to be prosecuted by an impartial prosecutor. The court stated, inter alia, that the judge's supervision of a contempt prosecution was generally sufficient to prevent the danger that the special prosecutor will use the threat of prosecution as a bargaining chip in civil negotiations. Klaymincs challenged the decision.

Issue:

Did the appointment of Louis Vuitton, S. A.’s attorneys as special counsel to represent the United States in the prosecution of a criminal action against Klaymincs violate the latter’s right to be prosecuted by an impartial prosecutor?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that because private attorneys appointed to prosecute a criminal contempt action represented the United States and not the party that was the beneficiary of the court order allegedly violated, the private attorney should be as disinterested as a public prosecutor who undertook such a prosecution. Further, the harmless error standard of review was not the proper standard to review the appointment of an interested prosecutor in this instance. Therefore, appointment of the corporation's attorneys to conduct the contempt prosecution was improper, and the judgment was reversed.