As the Prairieland defendants’ federal trial approaches, a pattern of concerning activity by the presiding judge, Mark Pittman, has emerged. The fate of the defendants—and the result of this trial—will have enormous impacts on the legal terrain for those resisting ICE terror and the course of the rising authoritarianism in the U.S. As such, the fairness of this trial should be of great concern to us all.
Judge Pittman, a Trump appointee, has a worrying history. He was a founding member of the Fort Worth chapter of the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society, an affiliation he shares with the U.S. Attorney who was formerly overseeing the Prairieland case. In addition, during Judge Pittman’s six years on the bench, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled at least three time that his sanctions against attorneys have gone too far.
The first recent action to note is the severely truncated timeline for the federal case. Often, other jurisdictions are more methodical, giving the defense ample time to prepare their case. In contrast, the federal Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth is known to schedule trials close to the legal minimums set in speedy trial regulations and plea deals are usually offered and taken pre-indictment. The original federal trial for the nine defendants was scheduled for early January. After a majority of defense attorney’s filed for continuances, Judge Pittman moved the date back only a matter of weeks and at the same time signaled that no more continuances would be granted.
In the national context of horrendous pre-trial detention conditions, speedy trial rights are important. But when defense attorneys are not given adequate time to mount a robust legal strategy, high pressure tactics for plea deals are the norm and in this case where the prosecution has had nearly twice the amount of time to build its case as the defense, grave concerns emerge about the fairness of this trial.
The second action by Judge Pittman that has raised alarm was the successful pressure to remove a star defense attorney from the federal case. George Lobb was hired to represent Maricela Rueda and has an impressive record winning in federal court. Lobb represents clients all over Texas and has handled federal cases in the Northern District of Texas. Lobb was born in and grew up in Tarrant County, and has family in the area. Lobb took up residence in Fort Worth last year, but despite this, the judge refused to accept that he was “local counsel” and threatened to fine him $1000 per day until he hired additional local counsel to serve as attorney of record. Even after Lobb complied with this request, Judge Pittman called him into a hearing specifically on the issue. In this hearing, the Judge had federal agents behind Lobb while explaining the broad powers of contempt and implied Lobb would be “investigated” but not reported to the State Bar. Shortly after the hearing, Lobb removed himself as Maricela’s federal attorney to avoid retribution against his client for doing nothing more than his ethical obligation to zealously represent her.
The third and most recent concerning example of Judge Pittman’s actions came from the bench on Wednesday, January 14. Judge Pittman ordered defense attorneys for Zachary Evetts to appear in court that morning to discuss a motion to compel discovery that they filed in November. During this appearance he admonished the attorneys for a failure to include an email from the prosecution in their motion. Later in the day, Judge Pittman decided this omission warranted a $500 fine imposed against each of the three defense attorneys. This action was seen by many other legal workers as irregular and egregious. The motion in question was routine and a standard filing to preserve legal rights to raise issues in the future. The sanctioning of these attorneys for this motion will almost certainly create a chilling effect for other attorneys who have reason to write important motions in the future.
Later in the day, Judge Pittman made clear he would have no tolerance for what he construes as disruption by members of the public in the courtroom. He stated that a first offense would lead to ejection, and a second would result in being sent to Johnson County Jail. The Judge used the number of defendants to justify tight restrictions on the actions of defense attorneys in court, specifically stating that during key aspects of trial only a single defense attorney would be able to address the court and be permitted to make objections. Objections coming from other attorneys would have to be passed to this attorney in some unspecified manner. He also made clear he considered the security risks of the trial extreme, even while there have been no disruptions in prior court appearances and defendants have not exhibited any dangerous behavior while incarcerated. A U.S. Marshall is to stand directly behind each defendant during trial, and strict limitations will be kept on how the public can access the courtroom. In a further demonstration of the Judge’s perspective on the trial and the defendants, he compared the case to those related to accusations of providing weapons to the Irish Republican Army. The implication by the presiding Judge that allegations made in this case bear any factual similarity to a multi-decade armed insurgency that left hundreds dead is alarming and deeply worrying.
All of our fates will soon be tied to what happens in a hundred-person courtroom in Fort Worth, Texas. But while we are living through a time of broken norms and terrifying indications for the future—as the Prairieland case makes starkly clear—we are in this together. The only path through the fear and uncertainty will be to continue and widen the solidarity and support we have already seen from so many of you. For that we are grateful, and with that we are hopeful.