Link to this week's summaries: http://www.tdcaadistribution.com/newsletter/newsletter.php?10417

1) Why was the first contempt citation in Thompson invalid?

2) Why was Azziz such a long opinion?

I don't think the first citation was invalid. I do think, because the judge only gave the defendant 3 days as a warning, the court wanted the judge to be able to reconsider the full range of punishment for all the contemptuous conduct.

Azziz was monstrously too long. Here is all they had to say: the more specific Transportation Code controlled the case.

About the next contempt hearing:

1) Does the state now have to file a motion for contempt and bring the guy back from prison?
2) Does Double Jeopardy limit the State to the same punishment as the first citation?

Good question about the motion. Previously, the judge could impose what is called a direct contempt, having viewed the conduct directly. The defendant could argue that a motion and hearing are now required. However, the CCA's order seems to be a remand for mere reconsideration of the punishment. But bringing the defendant back from prison is probably necessary.

No, double jeopardy won't prevent the judge from considering the full range, because the CCA has only now made it clear that the judge must punish in a single order for all the failures to testify.

Still, the whole thing would seem pointless.