Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

How is that a key point? The agents were asked to wait in a public area, the hall outside the courtroom. There was a call with the chief judge who confirmed this is a public area.

The allegations revolve around judge Dugan's actions. They allegedly cancelled the targets hearing and [directed] the them through a private back door to avoid arrest.

Edit: directed, not escorted.

View on HN

> [Dugan allegedly] escorted the them through a private back door to avoid arrest.

According to the complaint [0] on page 11, Flores-Ruiz still ended up in a public hallway and was observed by one of the agents. They just didn't catch him before he was able to use the elevator.

INAL but I don't think "Dugan let Flores-Ruiz use a different door to get to the elevator than ICE expected" should be illegal.

[0]: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/3d022b74...

The outcomes are immaterial to the legal question of obstruction, the only factors are knowledge of the warrant and intent to help him escape. If he successfully avoided arrest but it cannot be proven that the judge intended that outcome, then she is not guilty of obstruction. If he got caught anyway but the judge intended to help him escape, that's still obstruction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

As noted by the linked page those are minimum requirements. The relevant law regarding obstruction [0] is USC 18 §1505 [1]. It isn't immediately obvious to me that it was violated.

The first paragraph only appears to apply to physical evidence. The second paragraph appears to require more than merely assisting someone.

> Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication

The latter two obviously don't apply so that only leaves the former. Did the judge act "corruptly"?

The other law cited in the complaint is USC 18 §1071 [2] and the question would be if leading someone to an alternate pathway constitutes either harboring or concealing the individual. I don't feel like letting someone out my backdoor constitutes "concealing" a person as the term is commonly used. As an example, hiding someone in a closet and then telling the officers that he isn't in the building would obviously qualify.

[0] https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/3d022b74...

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071

If we're going to be technical about this, which one has to be in the eyes of the law, what is the difference between escorting them through the private back door vs escorting them through the front door?

How do you prove intent? That her intent was to obstruct?

They point out in the article that such room (juror room) is never usually used by certain people, but that still doesn't prove anything about her intent.

If it can be credibly demonstrated that she cancelled the hearing and escorted the defendant out a back door within seconds of sending the officers away, that she had every intent of proceeding with the hearing before meeting with the officers, and that she and her peers did not usually use that door for defendants, then I would consider that to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to obstruct the arrest.

It's not a given, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable burden of proof either.

> that still doesn't prove anything about her intent.

If the only reason to use the backdoor is to avoid arrest, then that proves her intent. If there was another reason to use it then that will come up in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com