system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: contempt is accused of violating. Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921, 921 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding). It must be sufficiently specific such that the person charged with obeying the order will readily know exactly what duties and obligations are imposed by the order. Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). If the court’s order requires inferences- or conclusions about whether particular conduct is encompassed by the order and concerning which reasonable persons might differ, the order is insufficient - to support a judgment of contempt. Id. at 260. And, if the judgment enforces the instructions of a party, rather than the specific requirements of the court, a contempt order enforcing the judgment must be set aside. Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d at 834-85 (<HOLDING>). Here, although the 2012 judgment is specific Options: A. holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court B. holding that a civil contempt defendant has a right to a jury trial when the act of contempt was not committed in the presence of the court and when the incarceration is in part punitive C. recognizing that no warning to a contemnor is necessary when contempt is flagrant the aoc also argues that williamss use of the term bullshit justifies a separate contempt finding particularly in light of the warning provided by the initial contempt citation17 assuming without deciding that certain forms of contempt are so selfevident that they excuse a court from complying with the plain terms of the statute we disagree that the record before us presents such circumstances regarding the trial courts initial contempt finding we decline the aocs invitation to speculate that williamss inaudible comment to the court was contemptuous on its face williamss comment may have been a patent obscenity or an innocuous comment taken out of context by the court or anything in between further the trial courts failure to make findings deprives us of any other relevant cireumstances not apparent in the bare transcript such circumstances might include williamss body language gestures or even a general air of defiance while these circumstances when combined with williamss actual comment may well have supported a contempt citation we cannot uphold the contempt finding based on mere conjecture therefore we conclude that the first finding of contempt is insupportable on the facts present in the recordt18 whether williamss use of the term bullshit independently supports a contempt finding presents a closer question the record reveals that williams used that term to describe either the sentence the trial court had just imposed or the trial courts initial contempt citation more troubling however than the language itself is the apparent challenge to the courts authority and decorum see utah code ann 783211 defining contempt as inter alia dlisorderly contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding see also haton v tulsa 415 us 697 698 94 sct 1228 39 led2d 693 1974 a single isolated usage of street vernacular not directed at the judge or any officer of the court cannot constitutionally support the conviction of criminal contempt emphasis added D. holding that any contempt order rendered by a court must enforce the specific requirements of the court not the cryptic instructions of a party given with the courts permission but without the certainty of detailed provisions of a decree E. holding a party failed to preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court instructing the jury but not after

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that any contempt order rendered by a court must enforce the specific requirements of the court not the cryptic instructions of a party given with the courts permission but without the certainty of detailed provisions of a decree