With much fanfare, as it turns out too much fanfare, the Trump Regime has arrested a Wisconsin judge. The Regime claims Judge Hannah Dugan hindered the arrest of an alien who was at the judge’s courtroom for a hearing by essentially sneaking him out the backdoor. I’ll not comment on whether Judge Dugan is guilty of innocent. If she committed a crime she should be prosecuted, though even the probable cause affidavit linked above is rather weak sauce for alleging a crime.
What is clear is that the Director of the FBI is working hard to undermine the case. In addition to the perp walk tweet above, showing her picture, combined with the inflammatory words (and ironic for this administration) “no one is above the law” Patel previously tweeted this effectively declaring Dugan guilty:
Besides treating the judge’s guilt as a forgone conclusion. Patel included the inflammatory claim that the judge endangered the public. That’s actually a legit argument, in court, but not in the court of public opinion where it risks prejudicing the jury pool. Patel later deleted this tweet, apparently when more competent subordinates warned him it was a bad idea, but the horse is already out of the barn. This is what happens when you hire inexperienced partisan bumblers, more interested in scoring political points than legal ones, to positions of such high responsibility.
The DOJ has standards for this. Justice Manual § 1-7.610 addresses “Concerns of Prejudice.” It begins:
Because the release of certain types of information could prejudice an adjudicative proceeding, DOJ personnel should refrain from disclosing the following, except as appropriate in the proceeding or in an announcement after a finding of guilt:
Thus, the DOJ, in it’s own policy, acknowledges that the listed items “could prejudice an adjudicative proceeding.” Defense counsel need only start with that when claiming Patel has prejudiced any potential trial against the judge. The list of things to “refrain from disclosing” includes the following:
A. Observations about a defendant’s or party’s character
Such as saying the party intentionally misdirected agents and endangered the public.
F. Any opinion as to the defendant’s guilt
Such as saying “no one is above the law” or that the judge intentionally misdirected agents. The word “any’ here is rather important because it suggests the mere whiff of suggesting guilt in extrajudicial public statements (like a freaking tweet) violates the policy aimed at avoiding prejudicing the trial.
And perhaps most on point to the captioned tweet and picture:
DOJ personnel should not encourage or assist news media in photographing or televising a person held in custody. DOJ personnel should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.
Tweeting out the handcuffed perp walk photo is a clear violation.
For those who might have a genuine concern this judge broke the law, this should infuriate you. Your own team is undermining the case against the judge. It is a prosecutorial axiom that you try the case in court, and not the in public, as Patel is doing. It’s also a prosecutorial axiom that you don’t give the defense any freebie arguments through your own actions, as Patel is doing in this case. If nothing else Patel is giving defense counsel leverage in any plea agreement negotiations. At worst, his repeated flouting of guidelines aimed at protecting a fair trial for defendants risks a sympathetic judge dismissing the case.
Should that happen the MAGA world will scream about liberal judges protecting their own. They undoubtedly will demand no accountability for the unforced errors committed by their Director of the FBI.
