dissenting:
I would sustain the finding of willful disobedience of a court order to appear on time, and the adjudication of contempt.1
Appellant, who acknowledged having come to court before by car and had to park, left home this time so late thát he arrived at the courthouse front with five minutes to park. He appeared in the courtroom fifty minutes late. He had previously been warned of his duty to appear, a warning that “shall be a factor in determining whether [a subsequent] failure to appear was wilful_” D.C.Code § 23-1327(b) (1996). See also id. (“Any failure to appear after notice of the appearance date shall be prima facie evidence that such failure to appear is wilful”). He had also been repeatedly warned of the penalties for failure to appear. The judge eventually convened a hearing whose adequacy is not challenged, heard appellant’s explanation (which included no reason for leaving home late and no attempt to telephone the clerk or the judge’s chambers), and concluded that his indifference to the court order went beyond negligence — was willful within the meaning of D.C.Code § ll-944(a) (1995).
The court now effectively retracts what we told parties in Williams v. United States, 676 A.2d 1339 (D.C.1990). We said there that a judge “may discredit the testimony of a defendant who appears late in court, even one who has never been late before, and find that the lateness was willful, deliberate, or reckless.” Id. at 1345 (emphasis added). That is so because “punctuality is essential to a functioning court system, and criminal contempt is a necessary sanction to help courts assure the orderly administration of justice.” Id. We remanded in Williams because of the danger in that case that the judge had relied on a “conclusive presumption” of willfulness from notice and failure to appear on time (no similar allegation is made here). But we left little doubt that after an evidentiary hearing and reconsideration we would sustain a finding “that appellant’s failure to ask anyone to wake him up constituted reckless disregard of his duty to appear in court at 10:00 a.m.,” id. at 1343, whether or not he had been late before.2
Yet, in this case, while reassuring the trial court that our decisions “do not guarantee the defendant one free late arrival,” ante at 484, the court all but holds just that. For unless the defendant has a record of prior late appearances, there must be “significant circumstances” present beyond the fact of late arrival — or “moderately” late arrival — to justify contempt, ante at 484, otherwise the judge may only warn the defendant again and move on. Since it is hard to imagine what such a “significant circumstance” would be other than an avowed intent to defy the court’s order, I can only conclude we did not mean what we said in Williams.3 The rule *487now is that, absent deliberate flouting, once is not enough.
.One effect of the majority’s contrary conclusion is to reduce the incentive for the trial court to do what the judge did here, namely suspend the imposition of sentence to spare the defendant most, if not all, of the consequences of a formal judgment of conviction. See, e.g., Langley v. United States, 515 A.2d 729, 734 (D.C.1986).
. Indeed, we had just distinguished In re Marshall, 549 A.2d 311 (D.C.1988), by discounting the government’s assertion that, as in Marshall, Williams had a prior history of late appearances. Williams, 576 A.2d at 1343.
. Professing to leave Williams intact, the majority implies that if the judge had ”discredit[ed] Thompson’s testimony” the result would be different. Ante at 485 n. 12. But the only relevance of Thompson’s testimony about his late departure from home and stop to pick up his companion was as to his state of mind — whether it showed simple carelessness or gross indifference to the court order that equalled willfulness. In finding the latter, the judge obviously discredited the defendant's efforts to minimize his fault.
Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, our cases have never suggested that the judge must first find that the defendant has perjured himself ("lied”) in explaining his conduct, thus showing "consciousness of guilt," before a finding of willfulness in a case such as this is permitted. See, *487e.g., Trice v. United States, 525 A.2d 176, 182 (D.C.1987) (in related prosecution for BRA violation, factfinder need only “reject[]” adequacy of defense proof before finding willfulness based on inference allowed by § 23-1327(b)).
The fact, of course, that the government did not prosecute for BRA or ask to be heard on the contempt has no bearing on whether a judge may punish disobedience of an order that obstructs the progress of cases in his courtroom.