character or effect, will not be lightly disturbed by the districtcourt on habeas corpus, Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So.185, [Fla. 1932] the rule is subject to the principle, that where theacts constituting the alleged contempt take place out of the presenceof the Court and relate to improper proposals to influence the actionsof jurors or other court officials in the performance of theirofficial duties, such proposals must be proven in the same manner andto the same degree of certainty as other criminal charges are provenif a valid judgment of contempt is to rest on them. See Stokes v.Scott, 138 Fla. 235, 189 So. 272 [Fla. 1939]; Williams v. Scott, 138Fla. 239, 189 So. 272 [Fla. 1939]”. Marshall v. Clark, 45 So. 2d 667(Fla. 1950).
FACT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The State was not involved in the proceedings below and has beenprovided no part of the record beyond that which is attached to thepetition and response. The State notes that it is incredibly difficultto respond, especially in this very limited time period, when theState was not made a party to the proceedings below and the contempthearing was not treated as a criminal proceeding. The State relies onthe facts and procedural history as laid out in the Petitioner Hash’spetition and Respondent Moore’s response.
The State is only
The pleadings reflect that in a prior proceeding involvingthe same parties, Petitioner was found to be in contempt of courtin June 2013. In a certiorari proceeding in that case, hepetitioned this Court for a stay and immediate release. This
- 2 -