<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17098" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>
<DIV>The below new case doesn't say anything new, but it is one more case for us
that is helpful. Have a good long weekend everybody. <SPAN
class=034555116-01072011>--Erin</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>FYI</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=slug-notification>Contempt</DIV>
<DIV class=story-notification>Consent No Defense to Violation of Protection
Order</DIV>
<DIV class=story-notification> </DIV>
<DIV class=p>Consent is not a defense to a charge of criminal contempt based on
a violation of a civil protection order, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals held June 16. (<SPAN class=case-name>In re Shirley, </SPAN>D.C., No.
09-FM-1182, 6/16/11)</DIV>
<DIV class=p>In this case, a protection order enjoined the defendant from
contacting his estranged girlfriend “in any manner.” The order prominently
warned that failure to comply was a criminal offense and that only the court
could modify the order. Evidence presented at the defendant's criminal contempt
trial showed that the defendant and his girlfriend met several times to try to
work out their problems. The defendant argued that he could not be guilty of
contempt because the girlfriend consented to meet with him.</DIV>
<DIV class=p>In <SPAN class=case-name>Ba v. United States</SPAN>, 809 A.2d 1178
(D.C. 2002), the Court of Appeals acknowledged the question presented in this
case but did not have to answer it. The <SPAN class=case-name>Ba</SPAN> court
decided that any consent the victim in that case might have given had been
revoked before the defendant violated the protection order against him.</DIV>
<DIV class=p>In an opinion by Judge Phyllis D. Thompson, the court now addressed
the issue directly and held that consent cannot serve as a defense to a contempt
charge arising out of a defendant's defiance of a CPO. Quoting from <SPAN
class=case-name>United States v. United Mine Workers</SPAN>, 330 U.S. 258
(1947), the court invoked the venerable rule that the orderly administration of
justice demands that “an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by
orderly and proper proceedings.”</DIV>
<DIV class=p>The defendant also argued that because the girlfriend had a private
right to enforce the protection order, she must also have had the power to
render it unenforceable. Rejecting this argument, the court said, “As we
clarified recently, criminal contempt actions for enforcement of CPOs, even when
brought by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of a respondent, ‘ha[ve]
to be brought in the name and pursuant to the sovereign power of the United
States,’ <SPAN class=case-name>In re Robertson</SPAN>, [<A
href="http://news.bna.com/crln/display/link_res.adp?fedfid=21227278&fname=a0c7w6j6p2&vname=crl1notallissues"
target=_top>89 CrL 259 </A>], at *2 (D.C. May 19, 2011).” It pointed out that
the public has an interest in preventing intrafamily violence via civil
protection orders just as a CPO petitioner does. </DIV></DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></BODY></HTML>