IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2016-KM-00546-SCT

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROUTH

v.

STATE OF MISSISIPPI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/13/2016

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JEFF WEILL, SR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID NEIL McCARTY
MERRIDA COXWELL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOSEPH SCOTT HEMLEBEN
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/27/2017
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE WALLER, C.J., KING AND MAXWELL, JJ.

MAXWELL, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

1. Criminal contempt involves an act which tends to bring the court into disrepute or

disrespect.1 In this case, Christopher Scott Routh was found in direct criminal contempt

after he disrespected the courtspecifically by standing up to dispute a judges bond ruling

after the bond hearing had been concluded and despite being directed by the judge to sit

1
Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So. 2d 794, 797 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Lawson v. State, 573
So. 2d 684, 686 (Miss. 1990)).
down and make any further argument by written motion. Because the record supports the

criminal-contempt finding beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm.

Background Facts and Procedural History

2. On April 23, 2016, Christopher Routh represented Loren Shell-Blackwell (Blackwell)

at her arraignment hearing. Routh is an attorney with the Hinds County Public Defenders

Office. Blackwell had been indicted for capital murder.

3. Prior to the hearing, Blackwell had been out on bond, under house arrest. Routh

requested Blackwell remain on bond and under house arrest. Routh argued his client had a

constitutional right to reasonable bail. He also asserted the State had no evidence linking her

to the crime.

4. The State responded that its policy is to request bond be denied to those charged with

capital murder, and Blackwell should be no exception. The State argued, contrary to Rouths

no-evidence claim, that Blackwells DNA had been found at the murder scene, plus she had

given incriminating statements to the police. Moreover, Blackwell posed a flight risk, having

no ties to Hinds County. The State also pointed out that the only reason Blackwell had been

granted bond previously was because she was pregnant. And now that her child was born,

there was no longer any reason she remain out of jail.

5. At this point, the circuit judge asked Routh about Blackwells infant, whom she had

brought with her to the hearing. Routh responded that the baby had a certain digestive

condition that required his mother breast-feed him. The judge asked what evidence Routh

had to support this contention. At first, Routh equivocated, saying he was not familiar with

2
the exact condition but that was what his client told him. But then Routh began talking about

a hospital discharge form. When asked if he wanted to introduce the form into evidence,

Routh said yes. But before offering it, the judge permitted the State to review the form. The

State pointed out that the document was a general discharge form from the hospital. It

merely directed the baby be regularly fed breast milk or formula. After reviewing the record

himself, the judge agreed the document contained no diagnosis of a gastrointestinal issue and

no prescription for breast milk only. Because the form Routh presented stated the infant

could be fed formula instead of breast milk, the judge found no compelling reason to grant

bond on this basis.

6. The judge then announced his decision

Im going to deny bond. Its a capital murder charge. Another purpose of

bond is to protect the public. Capital murder is an extremely serious charge
which can carry the death penalty, and the DNA evidence cited by the State,
along with the other summary of the evidence presented by the State, is
compelling. So Im going to deny bond.

But the judge then immediately advised he would reconsider [his decision] upon the filing

of the proper motion with proper evidence.

7. At this point, the judge turned to Blackwell and asked if she had funds to hire a

lawyer. When she answered no, the judge told her he would appoint someone to represent

her. Blackwell, audibly upset,2 then asked if she could speak. The judge responded that he

did not believe now would be the time. But he reassured her that her appointed attorney

would be in touch with her.

2
The audio-recording of the arraignment hearing is part of the record.

3
8. As a final matter, the judge asked if there was a family member who could take care

of Blackwells child or should social services be called. After Routh assured the judge the

baby could go with Blackwells relative who was in the courtroom, the judge concluded the

hearing.

9. At this point, Routh interjected, asking if he could make an argument. The judge told

him he could not because the hearing was over. Routh launched into his argument anyway.

At the same time the judge was asking him to sit down, Routh asserted that the Constitution

required the reason denying bail be placed on the record. He then accused the judge of

failing to do so.

10. The judge found Routh in direct criminal contempt. After a ten-minute recess, the

judge sentenced Routh. At sentencing, the judge told Routh

Mr. Routh, you had plenty of opportunity to make a record today and make
your arguments. Ill note that you blatantly misrepresented something on the
record today. After I made my ruling, I had told you I was not going to hear
any further argument and you repeatedly refused my directive to sit down. I
advised you to file a detailed written motion if you had anything else to present
on this issue, and Ill still consider any written motion on the bond issue.

Because you were held in direct criminal contempt and because of your refusal
to abide by the rules of this court, Im going to sentence you to spend some
time in jail. Im going to commit you to the custody of the sheriff of Hinds
County for the afternoon until 5:00 p.m.

11. Routh immediately filed an emergency petition with this Court, which was deemed

in part to be a notice of appeal of the contempt finding. This Court also granted Rouths

request for bond, permitting Routh to be released that day upon posting a $500 supersedeas

bond.

4
 Discussion

12. The only question on appeal is whether the record, viewed ab initio, supports finding

Routh in direct criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mingo v. State, 944 So.

2d 18, 32 (Miss. 2006) (proceeding ab initio on criminal-contempt appeals, determin[ing]

on the record whether the person in contempt is guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable

doubt).3 After review, we find that it does.

13. Conduct directed against the courts dignity and authority is criminal contempt.

Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So. 2d 794, 797 (Miss. 1994). It involves an act which tends to bring

the court into disrepute or disrespect. Id. (quoting Lawson v. State, 573 So. 2d 684, 686

(Miss. 1990)). Here, Routh challenged the dignity and authority of the trial court when he

interjected his argument after the judge had ruled on the bond issue, clearly instructed Routh

any further argument should be made by written motion, ended the hearing, denied Rouths

request to make further oral argument, and directed Routh to sit down.

14. On appeal, Routh argues he was asserting his clients constitutional rightnamely,

the constitutional requirement that, [i]n any case where bail is denied before conviction, the

judge shall place in the record his reasons for denying bail. Miss. Const. art. 3, 29(4).

According to Routh, an attorney respectfully asking for a trial court to follow Constitutional

3
Whether the contempt is civil or criminal hinges on the purpose of the contempt
finding. If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private
party litigants or enforce compliance with a court order, then the contempt is civil. Mingo,
944 So. 2d at 32. But if the purpose is to punish the contemnor for disobedience of a court
order, then the contempt is criminal. Id. Here, the purpose of the contempt finding was
to punish Routh for disobeying the judges order to sit down. So the contempt was clearly
criminal, prompting this Courts heightened review.

5
law can never warrant criminal contempt. The problem with this argument is that the

transcript clearly shows the judge had followed the Constitution. Before denying bond, the

judge explained his reasons for doing so(1) the fact the crime was capital and punishable

by death, (2) the need to protect the public, (3) the States strong evidence against Blackwell,

and (4) the lack of evidence to support Rouths contention that Blackwells baby required

breast milk. See Miss. Const. art. 3, 29(1) (providing all persons shall, before conviction,

be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses . . . when the proof is evident or

presumption great (emphasis added)). So the judge had already complied with this

constitutional requirement before the acts giving rise to the criminal contempt. Thus, Routh

cannot rely on invoking a constitutional safeguard as justification to continue arguing after

the hearing had ended and while he was being asked to sit down. At this point, Routh was

simply disputing the judges decision to deny bond.

15. Moreover, had Routh believed the judge had not followed the Constitution when

denying bond, Routh could have made this argument in a written motion. While the judge

denied bond, he promised to reconsider his decision upon the filing of the proper motion

with proper evidence. But instead of filing a motion, Routh chose to disrupt the court.

16. The contempt power is an important tool for keeping order and maintaining an

efficient court system. In re Hoppock, 849 So. 2d 1275, 1278 (Miss. 2003). We find the

judge was trying to maintain order in his courtroom in the midst of a difficult situationa

new mother distraught over being denied bond and having to leave her baby with a relative.

Routh made the courtroom more chaotic by standing up to dispute the judges ruling after the

6
hearing had ended and despite being ordered to sit down, thereby prevent[ing] the orderly

administration of justice. In re Williamson, 838 So. 2d 226, 237 (Miss. 2002) (Direct

criminal contempt involves words spoken or actions committed in the presence of the court

that are calculated to embarrass or prevent the orderly administration of justice.). In doing

so, he engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, in violation of Mississippi Rule

of Professional Conduct 3.5(d). Thus, we find the judge was within his authority to find

Routh in direct criminal contempt.

Conclusion

17. Disrupting the court by disputing a judges rulingafter being expressly told not

tosupports a finding of criminal contempt. We therefore affirm Rouths conviction of

direct criminal contempt.

18. AFFIRMED.

WALLER, C.J., DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, P.JJ., KITCHENS, KING,

COLEMAN, BEAM AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ., CONCUR.

7
 FILED
APR 13 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE Of THE:. C.L~ni,
SUPAEM~ COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER
SCOTT ROUTH, PETITIONER No.JDt~-m .. {3-;
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, BAIL FROM CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT FINDING
AND DENIAL OF STAY OR BOND BY CIRCUIT JUDGE JEFF WEILL

COMES NOW, Merrida Coxwell, attorney for Christopher Scott Routh ("Chris Routh"

or "Mr. Routh"), a licensed Mississippi attorney in good standing and employed by the Hinds

County Public Defender's Office, and for cause would show the following:

1.
ORIGINAL
On April 13, 2016, attorneys Eric Brown and Chris Routh were appearing in

Court for arraignment and a bond hearing for a client charged with criminal offense. The Client

had originally been released on bail by the County Court. At the time of the client's

arraignment, Judge Weill took argument from the State on whether to continue the bail, raise the

bail, or grant no bail. Attorney Routh had spoken for accused and afterwards the State requested

a revocation of the bail.

2. Judge Weill granted the State's request to revoke the bail of the accused and

attorney Routh asked Judge Weill to consider the findings on the record under Huff v. Edwards,

241 So. 2d 654 (Miss. 1970). The accused was in court with a three (3) month old baby and both

she and the baby began crying. There was no one available to take custody of the baby who was

breast fed. Attorney Routh, as an advocate, requested a finding on why bail for the accused was

being denied and Judge Weill immediately said he wanted order in court. He took a ten (10)

minute break and held Mr. Routh in direct criminal contempt and ordered him incarcerated until

five (5) o'clock today. Attached as Exhibit "A" is an Affidavit from attorney Michael Eric
2016 .. , u;.,1
Brown detailing the hearing today. MQ110Nff
3. According to MC.A., Section 11-51-11, (Miss. 1972), Mr. Routh is entitled to a

bond in an amount no greater than Two Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($2,000.00), which will
act as supersedeas while he appeals his conviction for criminal contempt to this Court. After

Judge Weill found Mr. Routh in direct criminal contempt, Assistant Public Defender Eric Brown,

who had been present the entire time, requested a stay which was immediately denied by Judge

Will. Judge Weill further ordered Mr. Brown to sit down and not say another word. Mr. Brown,

in fear of being put in jail himself, sat down while Mr. Routh was taken in custody by the Hinds

County Sheriffs Department. The oral order of Judge Weill sentenced Mr. Routh to the jail until

five o'clock (5:00) this afternoon.

4. Attorney Merrida Coxwell immediately emailed Judge Weill asking if there was a

misunderstanding and requested that he set bail in accordance with M.C.A. Section 11-51-11

(Miss. 1972). A copy of thee mail to Judge Weill with a copy to Ivon Johnson, Assistant District

Attorney is attached as Exhibit "B."

5. Due to the short time period counsel for Mr. Routh is not able to track down

Judge Weill.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED the Petitioner requests this Court to set an

immediate bail pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 11-51-11, or in the alternative,

release him on his own recognizance.

. '11
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THIS the i2_ day of April, 2016.
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROUTH, PETITIONER

BY:

2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Merrida Coxwell, counsel of record for the Petitioner, Chris Routh, do hereby certify

that I have this day caused the above and foregoing Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus or, in the Alternative, Bail From Constructive Contempt Finding and Denial of Stay

or Bond by Circuit Judge Jeff Weill to be served, via electronic mail, upon the following

persons of interest:

Honorable Jeff Weill, Sr.

jweillsr@co.hinds.ms. us

Ivon Johnson, Esquire

ijohnson@co.hinds.ms.us

THIS, the 13th day of April, 2016.

OF COUNSEL:

MERRIDA (BUDDY) COXWELL (MB# 7782)

COXWELL & AS SOCIA TES, PLLC
Post Office Box 1337
Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1337
Telephone: (601) 948-1600
Facsimile: (601) 948-1600
merridac@,coxwelllaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

3
 AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL ERIC BROWN

PERSONALLY CAME AND APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, the

within named Michael Eric Brown, who after being duly sworn states on his oath that the matters and

facts set forth herein are true and correct to the best of his memory and ability:

1. My name is Michael Eric Brown.

2. My address is located in Hinds County, Mississippi.

3. I am an adult resident of Hinds County, Mississippi.

4. I am over the age of 18 and am competent to provide a sworn, attested affidavit.

5. My date of birth is December 12, 1979.

6. I am a licensed attorney and a member of the Mississippi Bar Association.

7. I am currently employed as an attorney with the Office of the Hinds County Public

Defender.

8. My work telephone number is (601) 948-2683.

9. I, Michael Eric Brown, would like to give a statement regarding the arraignment

proceeding held in the Hinds County Circuit Court on April 13, 2016. At the arraignment of Loran

Danielle Shell-Blackwell, Cause No. 16-0-146, I was present along with my co-counsel, Christopher

Routh, Mississippi Bar Number 104579. Our office was appointed to represent Ms. Shell-Blackwell

on September 8, 2015 by the Honorable Judge Clayton in Jackson Municipal Court. Mr. Routh, along

with other attorneys with the Hinds County Public Defender's Office, again represented Ms. Shell-

Blackwell at her preliminary hearing held on September 16, 2016 before Judge Priester in Hinds

County Court. In accordance with the En Banc Order In re: Office of the Hinds County Public

Defender, No. 2015-M-0039, our office continued representing Ms. Shell-Blackwell.

EXHIBIT

Page 1 of 4
 9. At the arraignment hearing on April 13, 2016, the Honorable Judge Jeff Weill, Sr. asked

Ms. Shell-Blackwell on two (2) separate occasions whether she could hire an attorney or whether she

had an attorney. She replied "no" and represented she has not hired an attorney.

10. Counsel for both the State and Defendant were given the opportunity to present

argument on the issue of bail. Ms. Shell-Blackwell was on bond at the time of the hearing. After the

State argued bond be denied for Ms. Shell-Blackwell, Mr. Routh countered the State's argument citing

legal precedent, and rebuttal was allowed by the State and Mr. Routh.

11. Before Judge Weill ordered "no bond", Ms. Shell-Blackwell, who was holding an infant

born December 30, 2015, began crying uncontrollably while screaming and continued this during the

process of being cuffed and taken into custody by the Hinds County Sheriffs Department. Judge Weill

then said he would "appoint someone to represent" Ms. Shell-Blackwell, even though Christopher

Routh was in court, representing Ms. Shell-Blackwell. After Judge Weill had ordered no bond and

during the process of Ms. Shell-Blackwell crying and screaming, Judge Weill stated he had ruled on

the matter and told Mr. Routh to "be seated." Mr. Routh stated that Ms. Shell-Blackwell had a

constitutional right to bond and at least a hearing to determine the credibility of the evidence against

her if "no bond" was to be ordered.

12. Judge Weill found Mr. Routh in direct criminal contempt and took - for reasons unclear

- a "10-minute break" to counsel with his law clerk. After returning from his break, Judge Weill

stressed the importance of keeping "order" in his courtroom and then sentenced Mr. Routh to the

custody of the Hinds County Sheriffs Department until 5:00 p.m. At no time did Judge Weill order

anything to anyone else regarding keeping order in his courtroom.

13. I asked Judge Weill for a stay and he denied it and told me not to say another word. I

was afraid if I asked for anything else or said another word Judge Weill would also hold me in

contempt so I said nothing else. At all times in the proceedings we were acting professional and not

Page 2 of 4
being disrespectful to the court. Both Mr. Routh and I are assigned to Judge Weill's Court by the Hinds

County Public Defender. I do not believe Mr. Routh did anything to be held in direct criminal

contempt and as an attorney I would myself state that an appeal should be taken

I gave this affidavit independently and voluntarily with a full understanding of my rights. No

person has threatened me to say this. To the best of my knowledge, this affidavit is true and accurate.

It has been given in my own words, with nobody advising me of what to say. I have made no changes

to this document and have been allowed to do so after I read it and before I signed this document.

MICHAEL ERIC BROWN (MSB No. 103046)

Page 3 of 4
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF HINDS

PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority of law in and for the

State and County aforesaid, the within named MICHAEL ERIC BROWN who, after having been by

me first duly sworn, stated on her oath that the matters, facts, and allegations contained and set forth in

this statement are true and correct.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, THIS the 13th day of April, 2016.

Page 4 of 4
Merrida Coxwell

From: Merrida Coxwell

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:13 PM
To: 'jweillsr@aol.com'
Cc: 'ijohnson@co.hinds.ms.u'
Subject: Routh, Chris

SentFromSession: MERIDA-W7-PC.merridac.4/12/2016 5:21:23 PM

Dear Judge Weill.

I am representing attorney Christopher Scott Routh in an appeal from your order holding him in contempt. According to
Miss. Code Annotated, Section 11-51-11, Mr. Routh is entitled to appeal with a bond no greater than $2,000.00. I was
obviously not present and may have been mistaken in the understanding that you denied a stay and would not permit
the other attorney to speak any more to request an appeal bond. I am by this email requesting notification from you of
the amount of bail set by order in an amount no greater than $2,000.00 so Mr. Routh may secure his release and appeal
as all other litigants. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Merrida Coxwell

Coxwell&'ssociatesr11 (

Coxwell and Associates, PLLC

merridac@coxwelllaw.com
~
Merrida "Buddy" Coxwell I Attorney At Law

0: 601-948-1600 F: 601-948-7097
500 North State St Jackson MS 39201
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1337 Jackson, MS 39215-1337
http://www.coxwelllaw.com

EXHIBIT

I rS
Merrida Coxwell

From: Merrida Coxwell

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:15 PM
To: 'ijohnson@co.hinds.ms.us'
Subject: FW: Routh, Chris

SentFromSession: MERIDA-W7-PC.merridac.4/12/2016 5:21:23 PM

From: Merrida Coxwell

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 1:13 PM
To: 'jweillsr@aol.com' <jweillsr@aol.com>
Cc: 'ijohnson@co.hinds.ms.u' <ijohnson@co.hinds.ms.u>
Subject: Routh, Chris

Dear Judge Weill.

I am representing attorney Christopher Scott Routh in an appeal from your order holding him in contempt. According to
Miss. Code Annotated, Section 11-51-11, Mr. Routh is entitled to appeal with a bond no greater than $2,000.00. I was
obviously not present and may have been mistaken in the understanding that you denied a stay and would not permit
the other attorney to speak any more to request an appeal bond. I am by this email requesting notification from you of
the amount of bail set by order in an amount no greater than $2,000.00 so Mr. Routh may secure his release and appeal
as all other litigants. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Merrida Coxwell

(jf:_ Coxwel\i'.ssociatesr11 (

Merrida "Buddy" Coxwell / Attorney At Law
Coxwell and Associates, PLLC
merridac@coxwelllaw.com
0: 601-948-1600 F: 601-948-7097
500 North State St Jackson MS 39201
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1337 Jackson, MS 39215-1337
http://www.coxwelllaw.com

1
 FILED
APR 13 2016
Serial: 205314
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
No. 2016-M-00535

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF Petitioner

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROUTH

ORDER

This matter is before the panel of Randolph, P .J ., Kitchens and King, JJ ., on the

Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Or, in the Alternative, Bail From

Constructive Contempt Finding and Denial of Stay or Bond by Circuit Court Judge J effWeill

filed by Christopher Scott Routh. The Clerk of this Court has attempted to contact Judge

Weill but has been unsuccessful. The panel finds that the petition should be deemed in part

to be a notice of appeal from the finding of contempt. Routh argues that he is entitled to post

bond pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 11-51-11. After due consideration, the panel finds that

the petition should be granted in part. The panel finds that Routh shall be immediately

released from custody upon posting bond in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) which

will act as supersedeas while he appeals his conviction for criminal contempt to this Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus Or, in the Alternative, Bail From Constructive Contempt Finding and Denial of Stay

or Bond by Circuit Court Judge J effWeill filed by Chr-u.totmeir&;o

SO ORDERED, this the / 3-day of A ril, 2016. -----