Interfering with Judicial Proceedings Defense in Arizona

Shielding You from Contempt & Obstruction Charges

Charged under ARS §13-2704 for interfering with court proceedings? Armour Legal defends against allegations of intimidation, evidence tampering, or witness interference with targeted motions and factual challenges.

We analyze procedural context, intent, and government evidence to mitigate or dismiss charges.

What We Defend
Witness intimidation allegations

Evidence tampering claims

Court-order compliance issues

Contempt citation defense

Negotiated dispositions

We defend alleged violations of court orders, disruptive‑conduct claims, and non‑compliance rooted in confusion rather than defiance. Our first step is a paperwork audit: Was the order valid, properly served, and unambiguous? We show courts where instructions were unclear or conflicting, especially in matters overlapping with family‑law or protective‑order cases.


We then propose compliance frameworks—calendaring tools, documented check‑ins, and communication protocols—that make repeat issues unlikely, positioning judges to choose non‑custodial outcomes.

Court Orders, Contempt & Speech Limits

“Interfering” often involves violating a court order, disrupting proceedings, or disobeying lawful commands. The State must establish a valid order and a knowing violation. We analyze whether the order was clearly served, whether instructions were ambiguous, and whether alleged conduct was willful rather than a misunderstanding.


Because these cases can stem from protective orders or family‑law directives, we coordinate across dockets to prevent conflicting obligations. We also address First Amendment boundaries, ensuring that speech—especially online—was not criminalized without meeting legal standards.


A practical plan—new calendaring tools, proof of compliance, and clean communication channels—can persuade courts to opt for non‑custodial outcomes and restore a client’s standing.

Get Started
Key Considerations in Judicial Interference Defense

Intent & Knowledge

Black shield icon with a white outline.
We require proof of deliberate interference.
Two black swords crossed on a white background.

Procedural Safeguards

We ensure your rights during questioning and hearings.
A black gavel on a podium, representing a legal proceeding or auction.

Evidence Integrity

We challenge chain-of-custody and authenticity.
Courtroom Integrity: Defense Against Interference with Judicial Proceedings

Interference (ARS §13-2704) includes witness intimidation, evidence tampering, and contempt. Armour Legal files due-process challenges to vague contempt orders, disputes the sufficiency of “intent” proof, and moves to quash overbroad subpoenas.


By isolating procedural errors and highlighting good-faith missteps, we often reduce felonies to misdemeanors or negotiate non-custodial resolutions—preserving clients’ freedom and dignity.

Our first move is a paper audit: was the order valid, properly served, and clear? We highlight ambiguous instructions and miscommunications that often drive “knowing” violations. For courthouse‑conduct allegations, we obtain video, docket logs, and officer statements to test whether behavior was disruptive or simply inconvenient.


We design compliance solutions—calendaring tools, communication protocols, and documented check‑ins—that assure courts the issue will not recur. In many cases we can redirect outcomes toward education or community service rather than custody, while preserving future record‑relief options.

Get Started

Media Library

Frequently Asked Questions

What actions violate interference statutes?
Tampering with witnesses, intimidating jurors, altering evidence, or knowingly disobeying court orders can all violate ARS §13-2704.
Can misunderstanding court rules be a defense?
Lack of intent may be raised, but the State often shows willful interference. We emphasize procedural errors and absence of mens rea.
How to challenge a contempt citation?
We file motions for clarification, argue due process violations, and demonstrate substantial compliance with court directives.
Are there alternatives to jail for interference offenses?
Depending on severity, alternative sanctions include community service, probation, or fines in lieu of incarceration.
Stand Against Obstruction Charges

Schedule Your Defense Consultation

Schedule a Consultation