Whether a state court criminal defendant can enjoy his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel when his state court criminal counsel have been held in contempt and sanctioned $200,000 by a federal district court for using the evidence produced in the criminal case, which is subject to a preliminary injunction in a related civil federal district court case?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED How can a state court criminal defendant enjoy his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel when his state court criminal counsel have been held in contempt and sanctioned $200,000 by a federal district court for using the evidence produced in the criminal case, which is subject to a preliminary injunction in a related civil federal district court case? More specifically, in a civil case against David Daleiden, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction barring the use of certain videos. Subsequently, a state criminal action was filed against Mr. Daleiden. As part of their defense of Mr. Daleiden, Petitioners—who are criminal defense counsel—posted some of the videos to combat the attorney general’s attack on Mr. Daleiden in a public campaign. The District Court held Petitioners in contempt and issued a nearly $200,000 sanction. The Ninth Circuit denied appellate review until final judgment is entered. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33 (1941), appellate jurisdiction exists for non-party Petitioners held in contempt that are ordered to pay immediate sanctions. 2. Whether the Younger Abstention Doctrine must apply to these non-party criminal defense attorneys/ petitioners so then can provide effective assistance to their client without being held in contempt in a sovereign court that has no jurisdiction over them. 3. Whether the “fair ground of doubt” standard applies to Petitioners’ belief that a civil preliminary ii injunction did not apply to them when they disclosed information covered by the injunction in countering a massive public trial by the California State Attorney General that disclosed similar information covered by the same injunction.