- Joined
- Nov 4, 2020
- Messages
- 27,625
- Reaction score
- 44,760
First, I watched this lengthy discussion between a judge and two opposing counsels and found it extremely fascinating and complicated:
The upshot as I understood it--but am welcome to input or corrections since I am not a lawyer and was probably not keeping up with all the nuances:
- The setting, an illegal immigrant is brought to court on a charge. There is also an ICE hold on the individual. The individual had previously received and posted a bond. He is represented by an extremely tenacious attorney. The judge, highly tolerant and pragmatic. The state, a bit unsure how to proceed.
- The attorney essentially argues that if the court holds the individual on a warrant, it needs to understand that since he's already posted bond the attorney can go to the sheriff's office in 48 hours and demand his release, knowing the individual is a known flight risk and would not show up in court, however it's hard to fault him for defending his client to the maximum extent of the law. The attorney simultaneously argues that revocation of the bond followed by subsequent deportation by ICE would be equivalent to left of the bond since the individual could not get it back.
- The judge counter-argues that simply lifting conditions of the bond doesn't work either because if said individual flew off to some other country, he would be enjoying all the benefits of the bond without any of the constraints (drug tests, etc.) and by doing so the judge would be showing undue preference to the individual that he never would to any other person before the law.
- The state seems to be between a wall and a hard place. She hints that she could inform ICE of the possibility that the defense attorney may use what is effectively a loop-hole to have the person released from the sheriff's custody, causing ICE to be unable to execute its ICE hold to bring him to court for the criminal proceedings, however the judge cautions that this might endanger her career by showing preference in the other direction aka prejudice against the defendant. On the other hand she feels the state has an obligation to ensure somebody brings him to court if the defense gets him released.
I'd love to get more educated thoughts on this from anybody who watched it. I found it utterly captivating and fascinating.
The upshot as I understood it--but am welcome to input or corrections since I am not a lawyer and was probably not keeping up with all the nuances:
- The setting, an illegal immigrant is brought to court on a charge. There is also an ICE hold on the individual. The individual had previously received and posted a bond. He is represented by an extremely tenacious attorney. The judge, highly tolerant and pragmatic. The state, a bit unsure how to proceed.
- The attorney essentially argues that if the court holds the individual on a warrant, it needs to understand that since he's already posted bond the attorney can go to the sheriff's office in 48 hours and demand his release, knowing the individual is a known flight risk and would not show up in court, however it's hard to fault him for defending his client to the maximum extent of the law. The attorney simultaneously argues that revocation of the bond followed by subsequent deportation by ICE would be equivalent to left of the bond since the individual could not get it back.
- The judge counter-argues that simply lifting conditions of the bond doesn't work either because if said individual flew off to some other country, he would be enjoying all the benefits of the bond without any of the constraints (drug tests, etc.) and by doing so the judge would be showing undue preference to the individual that he never would to any other person before the law.
- The state seems to be between a wall and a hard place. She hints that she could inform ICE of the possibility that the defense attorney may use what is effectively a loop-hole to have the person released from the sheriff's custody, causing ICE to be unable to execute its ICE hold to bring him to court for the criminal proceedings, however the judge cautions that this might endanger her career by showing preference in the other direction aka prejudice against the defendant. On the other hand she feels the state has an obligation to ensure somebody brings him to court if the defense gets him released.
I'd love to get more educated thoughts on this from anybody who watched it. I found it utterly captivating and fascinating.
