Updated at 4:59 p.m.
Ruling in a closely-watched local domestic violence case that landed before the Supreme Court last spring, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has found that criminal contempt actions in domestic violence and other intrafamily cases must be brought in the name of the United States.
The decision (PDF), released this morning, marks a reversal of the court's previous ruling in 2008, in which it found that the victim in the underlying case, Wykenna Watson, was allowed under D.C. law to bring a contempt action against her ex-boyfriend for violating a civil protection order in her name.
Victims’ rights groups had argued that private enforcement of contempt in domestic violence and child custody cases is a necessary tool for victims. The appellate court upheld that right, as long as it is done "in the name of the United States," according to the D.C. Code.
The judges did not write that a representative of the U.S. government had to be
involved in the proceedings in order for a contempt action to be brought in its name. When the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the dissenting justices had expressed concern that private enforcement could impinge on the rights of defendants.
Watson’s ex-boyfriend, John Robertson, had argued that the contempt action was unlawful because he had already entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s office in the case. The appellate judges disagreed and denied his appeal.
The judges wrote that while the plea agreement did serve as a contract between Robertson and the U.S. – the government agreed not to press later abuse charges if Robertson pleaded guilty to a previous incident – it did not preclude the Superior Court from being able to assert its own authority when its orders are violated.
“It is not objectively reasonable for a violator of a CPO [civil protection order] to expect that his plea agreement with the United States would shield him by taking away the inherent power and authority of the Superior Court to enforce its CPOs through the sanction of criminal contempt,” the judges wrote.
Robert Long, a partner with Washington's Covington & Burling, has been representing Watson pro bono since the case went before the Supreme Court.
"We’re pleased that the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, and we’re pleased by the basic position that the beneficiary of a civil protective order should be permitted to enforce that order through an intrafamily contempt proceeding," he said.
The city’s Office of the Attorney General, which also filed briefs on Watson’s behalf, did not immediately return a request for comment. Robertson’s attorney, Jaclyn Frankfurt of the D.C. Public Defender Service, also could not immediately be reached for comment.
The question of whether Watson was bringing the contempt action individually or on behalf of the government came before the Supreme Court in April 2010. Although the court threw out the case and declined to answer the question, the four dissenting justices argued that the government should be considered the interested party in criminal contempt actions.
During oral arguments, the justices had questioned whether allowing individuals to pursue contempt actions without any government involvement would violate protections afforded to defendants in these cases.
In the opinion today, the appellate judges noted that while they did not need to address the question in order to dismiss Robertson’s claims – Watson and her attorneys had argued that the issue was irrelevant to resolving the case because there were other procedural errors – “we believe that the better course is to correct the assertion in our original opinion.”
Domestic violence victims groups paid close attention to the case, filing amicus briefs on behalf of Watson throughout the proceedings. The victims’ rights advocates had expressed concern that if the court were to take away private enforcement of contempt actions in domestic violence and child custody cases, it would limit victims’ ability to protect themselves against further abuse.
In the underlying case, Watson had filed for a civil protection order against Robertson in 1999, in the Family Division of D.C. Superior Court. She alleged that in March of that year, Robertson had beaten and threatened to kill her. The protection order was issued in April.
The city Office of the Attorney General took up representation of Watson's case in Family Court, and Robertson was charged with aggravated assault. He was indicted in July 1999, but entered into a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorneys’ office. Robertson pleaded guilty to the March incident, in exchange for assurances from the U.S. Attorney’s Office that it would not pursue charges relating to other alleged incidents in June 1999.
In January 2000, Watson – with assistance from the attorney general’s office – initiated contempt proceedings against Robertson for his violation of the civil protection order, based on the June 1999 allegations. According to her affidavit, Robertson had again beat her, in one instance inflicting chemical burns, in an attempt to convince her to drop the criminal case.
Robertson was found guilty of violating the order and was ordered to serve jail time. He appealed in 2003, arguing that the contempt proceedings were in violation of his plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s office. The trial court denied his request, so he appealed. The D.C. appellate court's 2008 ruling triggered Robertson’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Joan Meier, executive director of the Washington-based Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, applauded the opinion. Meier, also a law professor at George Washington University Law School, filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of five victims' rights groups.
"We trust that the court’s very clear ruling that private victims can bring actions in the name of the United States resolves that they will be the litigators, or with lawyers who represent them," she said, adding that she hoped to work with the U.S. attorney's office to review plea bargaining policies in terms of implications for contempt enforcement.
Thank you for a well-written article on this complex issue! Too often courts and society think that because something is labeled "criminal contempt" it is just like a crime - but when it comes to enforcing civil orders that label is largely a red herring. The Court's decision arguably at least partially reflects that reality.
Joan Meier, DV LEAP
Posted by: Joan Meier | May 19, 2011 at 04:09 PM