Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson

2010-05-24

Headline: Justices dismiss the case without deciding whether criminal contempt prosecutions must be brought by the government, leaving a lower-court ruling that allowed a victim to pursue criminal contempt in place.

Holding: The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted and therefore declined to decide whether criminal contempt prosecutions must be brought on behalf of the government.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the lower-court contempt conviction and sentence in place for now.
Keeps open whether victims can effectively act as prosecutors in criminal contempt cases.
Maintains uncertainty about plea agreement scope and constitutional protections.

Topics: criminal contempt, victim-initiated prosecutions, plea agreements, criminal procedure

Summary

Background

A woman obtained a civil protective order after being assaulted by her then-boyfriend. The U.S. Attorney’s Office separately prosecuted an earlier assault and reached a plea deal that said it would not pursue charges about a later June incident. The woman later asked the court to bring criminal contempt charges for violating the protective order; after a bench trial the man was convicted on three contempt counts and given consecutive 180-day terms (with the last suspended for five years’ probation) and about $10,000 in restitution. He appealed, arguing the later prosecution conflicted with the plea agreement.

Reasoning

The central question the Court had agreed to review was whether a criminal contempt prosecution in a court created by Congress can be brought in the name and power of a private person instead of in the name and power of the United States. The Court ultimately dismissed the case as improvidently granted and declined to decide that question. In a dissent, the Chief Justice argued the answer should be no — criminal prosecutions must be brought on behalf of the government — and would have sent the case back for the lower court to re-evaluate the plea agreement. The Solicitor General had abandoned an earlier argument that the contempt was purely a private action.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to decide, the lower-court ruling allowing the victim-initiated criminal contempt prosecution remains in place for now. Important practical questions remain open, including how plea agreements interact with victim-initiated criminal actions and what constitutional protections apply when a private party prosecutes contempt. This ruling is not a final resolution on those larger issues and could change in future proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

The Chief Justice dissented and would have held criminal prosecutions must be brought by the government; Justice Sotomayor joined his dissent but noted the proposed narrow holding would not address civil contempt or broader restraining-order enforcement systems.