S. Ct. Crim. No. 2017-0026

Upon petition for entry of a stay pending appeal, the Court considers: (1) whether the litigant has made a strong showing of likely success on the merits; (2) whether the litigant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. In this case the appellant attorney has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that consideration of the pertinent four factors favors granting a stay with regard to a contempt ruling of the Superior Court. While it is alleged that required constitutional protections were not provided and that the order below was not remedial in nature, the hearing transcript has not been provided by the appellant with the motion, thus it must be presumed that the Superior Court acted correctly and that its factual findings are not clearly erroneous. There has been no showing that the orders violated by the contemnor were unconstitutional, and the appellant has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Nor has the required showing been made of any irreparable harm that has not already occurred. Thus the motion for a stay is denied.