People v. Geiger
Annotate this CaseWhen he was 15 years old, Geiger testified for the state at the trial of a fellow gang member for a 1999 double murder. A codefendant in that case was retried in 2008, and, as to him, Geiger refused to testify, claiming Fifth Amendment privilege. The circuit court advised him that there was no reasonable basis for the claim, given his prior testimony and own earlier statement to police. The prosecution made an offer of use immunity, but he still refused to testify and was given a 20-year sentence for direct criminal contempt. The appellate court affirmed. In the meantime, the codefendant was convicted and Geiger conceded his Fifth Amendment claim. The Illinois Supreme Court found the 20-year term manifestly disproportionate and unreasonably excessive, noting that the power to punish for contempt is discretionary with the judiciary and that there is no sentencing classification or sentencing range set by the legislature. The court also noted that there was some evidence that the refusal to testify might have been driven by fear of gang retaliation.
Court Description:
This Kankakee County appeal involves a sentencing challenge. The underlying conviction is not at issue.
When he was 15 years old, this defendant had testified for the State at the trial of a fellow gang member for a 1999 double murder. There was a codefendant in that case who was retried in 2008, and, as to him, Geiger later refused to testify, claiming his fifth amendment privilege. The circuit court advised him that there was no reasonable basis for this claim because of his prior testimony and because of his own earlier statement to police. (His appointed attorney had argued to the contrary.) The prosecution made an offer of use immunity, but defendant still refused to testify and was given a 20-year sentence for direct criminal contempt. The appellate court affirmed.
The accused at the trial at which Geiger would not testify was later convicted and that result has been affirmed on appeal. In Geiger’s own appeal, he no longer challenged his conviction for direct criminal contempt, and conceded that he was mistaken in his belief that he had a fifth amendment right not to testify. However, he challenged the 20-year sentence imposed as being excessive.
The supreme court noted that the power to punish for contempt is discretionary with the judiciary and that there is no sentencing classification or sentencing range set by the legislature. Reviewing courts bear a special responsibility for preventing abuse of their discretionary contempt power, and the supreme court may, in appropriate circumstances, revise sentences inflicted on contemnors. The supreme court also noted that there was some evidence that the refusal to testify might have been driven by fear of gang retaliation. The supreme court found the 20-year term manifestly disproportionate and unreasonably excessive. The cause was remanded to the circuit court for the opportunity to enter a more reasonable sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.