Ramirez
United States v. Ramirez
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Attorney Robison D. Harley appeals an adjudication of contempt of court for failing timely to appear as ordered on the first day of trial in the underlying criminal case, in which he was defense counsel for one of the defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We vacate the adjudication of contempt of court and the order imposing sanctions, as well as the district court’s subsequent order affirming its decision.
The elements required for a finding of criminal contempt are (1) a clear and definite order of the court, (2) the contemnor’s knowledge of the order, and (3) the contemnor’s willful disobedience of the order. United States v. Doe, 125 F.3d 1249, 1254 (9th Cir.1997). The only issue raised in this appeal is whether Harley’s actions constituted willful disobedience. An attorney’s tardiness alone cannot support a finding of willfulness; rather, the district court must consider the reasons for attorney’s presence elsewhere. In re Allis, 531 F.2d 1391, 1392 (9th Cir.1976). Accidental, inadvertent, or negligent violations of an order are not willful. Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 782 (9th Cir.1983).