VI. Notwithstanding the absolute nature of these words, the Supreme Court has held that jury trials are required only for “serious” crimes; “petty” offenses can be tried by a judge. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 159-62, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1452-54, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). To determine if an offense is serious, a court must look to objective criteria, particularly “the severity of the maximum authorized penalty.” Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 68, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970) (plurality opinion). Where Congress has indicated the seriousness of a crime by setting a maximum penalty for it of more than six months imprisonment, a defendant is entitled to'a jury trial. See Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 1292, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989) (<HOLDING>). However, “criminal contempt is unique in that
holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect holding a defense of alcoholism was outweighed by the seriousness of the offense and the appellants prior disciplinary record holding that courts must look to objective indications of the seriousness with which society regards the offense holding that in determining whether a prior conviction is a violent felony a court generally must look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense