Can a contempt proceeding be constitutionally tried without a jury?

We specifically faced the issue of whether a contempt proceeding could be constitutionally[729 P.2d 235] tried without a jury in Bridges v. Superior Court (1939) 14 Cal.2d 464, 94 P.2d 983 (revd. on other grounds, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192). ⁶ We held that no such right existed, stating "[i]t has been the universal practice in this state from its earliest history to try proceedings in contempt by the court without a jury.... 'The power of the court to punish summarily for contempt has existed from the earliest period of the common law and is not within the application of constitutional provisions guaranteeing a trial by jury, or providing against depriving persons of their liberty without due process of law. [Citations.]' " (Id. at p. 478, 94 P.2d 983.) Thus, throughout California's history, the common law uniformly has been interpreted as not providing for a jury trial for contempts characterized as "petty" at common law. Despite this uniformity in interpretation,

Page 923