With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contains a lengthy discussion — located in the section following Kendall’s discussion of recusal — explaining why Kendall had sua sponte concluded that Ford and Paris could not obtain a fair trial due to pre-trial publicity, despite the holding of this Court’s May 13, 2009 Opinion. Ford, 52 V.I. at 53-59. Thus, the July 7, 2009 Opinion itself provides strong evidence that Kendall’s stated reason for recusal was a pretext, in that Kendall continued to issue rulings in the matter — including in the same document in which he announced his recusal — despite claiming to have been biased against one of the parties. Under these circumstances, we find Kendall guilty of indirect criminal contempt through failure to comply with the May 13, 2009 Opinion and Order. See Palmer, 418 N.E.2d at 532 (<HOLDING>). D. Misbehaving in Official Transactions

A: holding that a juvenile defendant could not be found in indirect criminal contempt where defendant was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt and there was no information in the order to show cause informing defendant that he was subject to possible criminal penalties
B: holding that an attorney charged with contempt for failing to attend a scheduled hearing could be charged only with indirect not direct contempt because the contempt did not occur in open court and the judge did not have personal knowledge of the reasons for the attorneys nonappearance
C: holding trial judge in indirect criminal contempt for recusing himself to avoid applying decision he disagreed with
D: holding that where criminal contempt charged has in it the element of personal criticism or attack upon the judge and where delay would not be impracticable a different judge should preside over the criminal contempt trial
C.