In Re Healy

I cannot agree with my colleagues’ reversal of this case. First, I find the legal reasoning employed in order to support reversal to he dangerously flawed. Second, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s order finding Healy in contempt of court.

1. (a) If the majority acknowledges that Healy’s knowing and intentional comment on the results of his client’s prior trial was improper and grounds for mistrial, then such would be an interference with the “administration of justice,” and this case would have to be affirmed. See OCGA § 15-1-4 (a) (1). Accordingly,. the majority must…