Brief Fact Summary.

For his failure to respond to subpoenas served

uponhiminFrancewhichrequiredhisappearanceintheUnitedStates,
Blackmer(D)wasfoundtobeincontemptofcourt.

SynopsisofRuleofLaw.Theremustbedueprocessfortheexerciseof
judicialjurisdictioninpersonam.

Facts.Blackmer(D),aU.S.(P)citizenwhowasresidinginFrance,was
servedsubpoenastoappearincourtasawitnessinacriminaltrialinthe
U.S.ContemptproceedingswereinitiatedagainstBlackmer(D)whenhe
failedtorespondtothesubpoenasandhewasfoundguiltyandfined.
Blackmer (D) appealed on the ground that the federal statute was
unconstitutional.

Issue.Musttherebedueprocessfortheexerciseofjudicialjurisdiction
inpersonam?

Held.(Hughes,C.J).Yes.Theremustbedueprocessfortheexerciseof
judicialjurisdictionin personam. Thecourtmay adjudgethe witness
guiltyofcontemptifthewitnessfailstocomplywiththecourtorder.
Congressactedpursuanttoitsauthorityinenactingthestatuteandit
couldprescribeapenaltytoenforceit.Affirmed.

Discussion. The statute was not found to be unconstitutional by the

Court.Blackmer(D)allegedthattherewasinadequatenotice,butsince
he still retained his U.S. citizenship, he was still subject to the U.S.
authorities.

Facts
Harry M. Blackmer (defendant) is a United States citizen but a
resident of Paris, France. The United States government (plaintiff)
issued two subpoenas requesting Blackmer appear as a witness on
its behalf at a criminal trial. Blackmer failed to appear, and two
separate contempt actions were instituted against him in the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The contempt actions
were based on a United States statute which provides that
whenever the attendance at the trial of a criminal action of a
witness abroad, who is a citizen of the United States or domiciled
therein, is desired by the Attorney General, or any assistant or
district attorney acting under him, the judge of the court in which
the action is pending may order a subpoena to issue, to be
addressed to a consul of the United States and to be served by him
personally upon the witness with a tender of traveling expenses.
Additionally, upon issuance of the subpoena and failure of the
witness to appear, the court may issue an order requiring the
witness to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt. Once the order is issued, the court may seize the
property of the witness to be held by the United States to satisfy
any judgment which might be rendered against the witness in the
proceeding. Service is affected through both personal service on
the witness and through publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the district where the court is sitting. If, after a
hearing, the charge against the witness is sustained, the court may
find the witness guilty of contempt and impose upon him a fine to
be satisfied by the seized property. Blackmer was found guilty of
contempt on both counts, and a fine of $30,000 was imposed in
both cases. The fine was to be satisfied out of Blackmers property
which had been seized by the court. On appeal, Blackmer objected
to the statute supporting his contempt convictions on the ground
that it violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Blackmer stated five arguments in support of this
contention. Most notably, he argued that the statute did not
comply with due process requirements under the United States
Constitution. The court of appeals affirmed the contempt decrees,
and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.