Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08-6261 | D.C. App. |
Mar 31, 2010 Tr. |
May 24, 2010 | 9-0 | Per Curiam | OT 2009 |
Holding: The Court held that it should not have heard the case in the first place, thereby declining to decide whether a private party can bring an action for criminal contempt.
Judgment: Dismissed as Improvidently Granted in a per curiam opinion on May 24, 2010. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Per curiam dismissal in criminal contempt case (James Bickford)
- Plea bargains and private prosecutors (James Bickford)
- Can a private party bring an action for criminal contempt in an Article I court? (James Bickford)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner John Robertson
- Brief for Respondent Wykenna Watson
- Reply Brief for Petitioner John Robertson
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Family Law Judges, Practitioners & Scholars in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project and Other Domestic Violence Organizations, Scholars, and Professionals in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States of America in Support of Respondent
Submit Event
