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.
