Criminal Contempt for the Same Conduct Which Constitutes a Different Offence
The U.S. v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993) Court reviewed two cases in which respondents were found in criminal contempt of court for violating court orders that prohibited the same conduct that was later the subject of criminal prosecution.
The Court considered whether jeopardy barred subsequent criminal prosecutions.
The Court determined that:
(1) the contempt required proof of violating a protective order, but the subsequent offenses did not and;
(2) the subsequent offenses of assault with intent to kill, threatening to injure and threatening to kidnap required proof of specific threats and assault, but the contempt offense did not.
The Court held that contempt differed from those subsequently charged offenses and prosecution for those offenses did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Dixon, 509 U.S. at 701-03,712.