Opinion ID: 736848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellant's Violation of the March 15 Order Was Willful

Text: 21 Third, appellant's violation of the order was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be willful. To establish willfulness, the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant acted with deliberate or reckless disregard of her obligation under the March 15 order. In re Holloway, 995 F.2d at 1082. There was abundant evidence of such willfulness in this case. Brown repeatedly showed her defiance to the order, both by her numerous comments and actions directed against Brown (detailed above) and by her comments to co-workers about the order. On May 8, appellant stated that she did not care about the lawsuit and threatened to blow [Brown] away. Moreover, Young ignored two separate warnings from co-workers that indicated she might be violating the court order. First, in April 1995, when Young expressed her displeasure at Brown's testimony in the case, co-worker Manigault told her you need to leave that alone. You have no control over that. That's none of [323 U.S.App.D.C. 277] your business. App. C33. Second, after the May 8 altercation, Corporal Hill reminded Young about the district court's order, stating you know that the judge's order said, any type of retaliation against those people on the list. He warned her that you need to stop messing with Brown before you get in trouble. App. B75. Despite these warnings, Young's harassment of Brown continued. Taken in the light most favorable to the government, the facts on this record--demonstrating Young's egregious and continuing retaliatory actions against Brown, Young's own statement about her disregard for the court order and lawsuit, and Young's refusal to listen to co-workers who warned her about violating the order--are more than sufficient to support the district court's conclusion that appellant's violation of the order was willful. 22