Whether a criminal-contempt prosecution by an interested private party violates the Due Process Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A Texas court permitted a financially interested civil party’s lawyer to prosecute his opposing party, petitioner Natin Paul, for criminal contempt. The trial court then sentenced petitioner to jail for 10 days via email, without any opportunity to appear, be heard, or attend with counsel. The Texas Supreme Court subsequently denied a writ of habeas corpus or mandamus by a 5-4 vote. The questions presented, on which lower courts are squarely divided, are: 1. Whether a criminal-contempt prosecution by an interested private party violates the Due Process Clause. 2. Whether sentencing a criminal defendant to jail via email, in absentia and without the opportunity to address the judge, violates the Due Process Clause or the Sixth Amendment.