4 ms·

That would really depend on what the judge did, though. If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with

That would really depend on what the judge did, though. If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, that sounds like obstruction. If the judge said, “the chief judge wants to talk to you”, and the chief judge really did want to talk to the ICE agents, is that obstruction? In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until after arresting the suspect, or just sent one of their agents to talk to the chief judge and leave the rest in the courtroom.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>That would really depend on what the judge did, though. It would, of course. But we don't know what the judge did, and yet everyone here is interpreting the events in the least generous way possible. Next week, when there is another incident, they'll use their least generous interpretations of what happened here as fact to justify their least generous interpretations of that incident. >If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, Or, if he just said "you all need to leave, none can stay" with the intention of hurrying the proceeding along so that the immigrant could leave before they could possibly return, that too is willful obstruction. >In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until a The other comment says they were "asked to leave and talk to him for permission". Ask is courtroom code for "do this, or you'll be arrested for contempt and spend at least a few hours in a holding cell in the other part of the courthouse building". There was no "they could have just not gone".
- openasocket 1y ago
  > Or, if he just said "you all need to leave, none can stay" with the intention of hurrying the proceeding along so that the immigrant could leave before they could possibly return, that too is willful obstruction. In the fact pattern you've given, we're getting dangerously close to prosecuting a judge for official acts taken in their courtroom. The only difference is that, in your fact pattern, the judge is doing this in bad faith, with the express intent of assisting this person evade arrest. A Judge is required to maintain order in their courtroom and ensure that the docket runs smoothly. A bunch of ICE agents sitting in the gallery could definitely be interpreted as disruptive. If this defendant saw that or knew that, he would be likely to run. If ICE was going to arrest this person in the middle of a courtroom, that would also be disruptive. A judge is well within their rights to remove people from the gallery if they are going to pose a disruption. Additionally, this is not new. Defendants walk into court with open warrants all the time. Police are not allowed to walk in and arrest defendants in the middle of court. I don't understand why ICE would be special.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >The only difference is that, in your fact pattern, the judge is doing this in bad faith, with the express intent of assisting this person evade arrest. Which, if anyone were honest here, most would admit that they suspect that was the intent. You can't cheer on the judges who do this sort of thing as heroes upholding democracy in one thread, and turn around and in another say "well, they weren't even deliberately doing it, they're just following rules". Can we prove the judge was acting in bad faith? I don't think that's very likely. But I'd be shocked if that wasn't really what was going on. We're all being manipulated, you know. I still see 3 headlines a day about the "Maryland man", who isn't from Maryland. >A bunch of ICE agents sitting in the gallery could definitely be interpreted as disruptive. Sure, some could claim that. But I doubt they were hooting and hollering and pointing at the man, making intimidating gestures. >If ICE was going to arrest this person in the middle of a courtroom, Some here would claim that, but this is unlikely. They'd have waited for the proceeding to end, and followed him out the door. It still accomplishes what they want without pissing off a judge that they might need civility from next week or next year. If you're imagining they're causing trouble that won't help them accomplish what they want to accomplish simple for the sake of causing trouble and making Trump look bad... well, then what can I say? >Police are not allowed to walk in and arrest defendants in the middle of court. No one needs to do that. Those same police you're talking about wait until it's over, and arrest them in the hallway outside the courtroom. And they are allowed to do that. But then, most judges don't have soft spot for those criminals like they do for illegal immigrants.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

>That would really depend on what the judge did, though. It would, of course. But we don't know what the judge did, and yet everyone here is interpreting the events in the least generous way possible. Next week, when there is another incident, they'll use their least generous interpretations of what happened here as fact to justify their least generous interpretations of that incident. >If the judge said, “the guy you are looking for is with the chief judge” and it turns out he wasn’t with the chief judge, Or, if he just said "you all need to leave, none can stay" with the intention of hurrying the proceeding along so that the immigrant could leave before they could possibly return, that too is willful obstruction. >In that scenario, ICE could have just not gone to see the chief judge until a The other comment says they were "asked to leave and talk to him for permission". Ask is courtroom code for "do this, or you'll be arrested for contempt and spend at least a few hours in a holding cell in the other part of the courthouse building". There was no "they could have just not gone".

openasocket 1y ago
> Or, if he just said "you all need to leave, none can stay" with the intention of hurrying the proceeding along so that the immigrant could leave before they could possibly return, that too is willful obstruction. In the fact pattern you've given, we're getting dangerously close to prosecuting a judge for official acts taken in their courtroom. The only difference is that, in your fact pattern, the judge is doing this in bad faith, with the express intent of assisting this person evade arrest. A Judge is required to maintain order in their courtroom and ensure that the docket runs smoothly. A bunch of ICE agents sitting in the gallery could definitely be interpreted as disruptive. If this defendant saw that or knew that, he would be likely to run. If ICE was going to arrest this person in the middle of a courtroom, that would also be disruptive. A judge is well within their rights to remove people from the gallery if they are going to pose a disruption. Additionally, this is not new. Defendants walk into court with open warrants all the time. Police are not allowed to walk in and arrest defendants in the middle of court. I don't understand why ICE would be special.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >The only difference is that, in your fact pattern, the judge is doing this in bad faith, with the express intent of assisting this person evade arrest. Which, if anyone were honest here, most would admit that they suspect that was the intent. You can't cheer on the judges who do this sort of thing as heroes upholding democracy in one thread, and turn around and in another say "well, they weren't even deliberately doing it, they're just following rules". Can we prove the judge was acting in bad faith? I don't think that's very likely. But I'd be shocked if that wasn't really what was going on. We're all being manipulated, you know. I still see 3 headlines a day about the "Maryland man", who isn't from Maryland. >A bunch of ICE agents sitting in the gallery could definitely be interpreted as disruptive. Sure, some could claim that. But I doubt they were hooting and hollering and pointing at the man, making intimidating gestures. >If ICE was going to arrest this person in the middle of a courtroom, Some here would claim that, but this is unlikely. They'd have waited for the proceeding to end, and followed him out the door. It still accomplishes what they want without pissing off a judge that they might need civility from next week or next year. If you're imagining they're causing trouble that won't help them accomplish what they want to accomplish simple for the sake of causing trouble and making Trump look bad... well, then what can I say? >Police are not allowed to walk in and arrest defendants in the middle of court. No one needs to do that. Those same police you're talking about wait until it's over, and arrest them in the hallway outside the courtroom. And they are allowed to do that. But then, most judges don't have soft spot for those criminals like they do for illegal immigrants.