Due-process-clause-violation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner Linnzi Zaorski was found in contempt of court by a preponderance of the evidence for violating her child custody judgment, and sentenced to a fixed fifteen (15) day jail term and a $250 fine. She was also ordered to pay the child’s father $4,625 for attorney’s fees. The jail sentence and fine were suspended on the conditions that she timely pay the attorney’s fees and is not again found in contempt in any proceeding. When she was tried and convicted for contempt of court, the custody judgment which she was found to have violated was no longer in effect and had been superseded by an entirely different one. The state trial and appellate courts deemed this a civil contempt case. Under the terms of her contempt adjudication, she remains exposed to a fixed jail sentence and a fixed fine without ever having been convicted of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. The questions presented are: 1) Did the suspension of Ms. Zaorski’s fixed jail sentence and fine, conditioned on terms wholly unrelated to the judgment which she was convicted of violating, and which judgment no longer existed, constitute a “purge clause” for the purposes of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 2) Was Ms. Zaorski, as a matter of law, unconstitutionally convicted by a preponderance of the evidence for criminal contempt of court, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt? i PARTIES The only parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Linnzi Zaorski and Respondent Nicholas Usner.