Arnold Ragas, a lawyer, transported his criminal-defense client from jail to a rehabilitation facility after the client’s sentence required him to remain jailed until acceptance and space were available. The facility did not accept the client, and Ragas left him with a relative without immediately notifying the court. The trial court later found Ragas in criminal contempt for disobeying the client’s sentencing order and failing to be candid with the court. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the evidence was insufficient. The order was directed to the client, not Ragas, and the State did not prove that Ragas had the ability, authority, or criminal intent to comply on the client’s behalf. Nor did the record show that Ragas was acting in an official transaction with the court when the events occurred or that a professional duty of candor could itself support criminal liability on these facts. Because the evidence could not support the contempt conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a remand to cure the proof. The court reversed and remanded with direction. A dissent would have vacated the judgment for use of the wrong standard of proof and remanded for reconsideration.