The Hutson Chapter

David Bruce McDermott II alleges, in a pending federal civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, that he was unlawfully prosecuted and held, and he names Ms. Hudson among the defendants. He further alleges that he was called to a private office meeting where his release was connected to the dismissal of his lawsuit — "David gets to go home if he dismisses his case" — an account he intends to prove in that proceeding. He also states that, having been told his calls from custody were recorded, he deliberately said certain things on those lines precisely so the record would preserve them. That is a litigant lawyering from inside a cell — make of it what the evidence will.

These are allegations by one party in active litigation. They are contested, no court has ruled on them, and Ms. Hutson — like every defendant — is presumed to have acted in good faith unless and until a court finds otherwise. This page will report what the court finds, whichever way it finds.

Here is my professional opinion, offered respectfully and labeled as opinion: when Mr. McDermott was released, somebody with authority made that call — and the most coherent, most charitable reading is that she looked at the case and recognized something in it demanded correction. Prosecutors do not release people casually. If that reading is right, then the release itself was an act of the very ethics her office requires — seeing it, owning it, acting on it. She is responsible for that decision in the best sense of the word. It should be counted for her.

And consider what the released man did with his freedom. He did not hurt a soul. He went home and built iamthelawskunk.com — a free legal education house — and a courtroom where a skunk in a robe teaches America procedure. As threats to public safety go, this may be the funniest outcome in the history of the Eastern District.

One more thing, and it is the point of this entire page: her own story is proof that the system can hand a person back their scales. Judge Brett D. McSkunk's jurisprudence — you do right, you'll be done right; second chances are earned on the record — describes her arc before it describes anyone else's. A district attorney who was herself restored by grace now holds the power of mercy over others. We publicly wish her the wisdom to use it the way it was used for her.

Question presented. May a citizen publish a profile of a sitting district attorney that reports the verified public record, states his own litigation allegations as allegations, and offers labeled opinion on her official conduct?

Short answer. Yes — this is among the most protected speech American law knows.

Argument. First, Ms. Hutson is a public official under Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966): an elected-office district attorney holds substantial responsibility over the conduct of public affairs. Commentary on her official conduct therefore triggers the actual-malice regime of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), whose central promise is debate on public issues that is "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964), extends that shield squarely to criticism of prosecutors.

Second, everything factual on this page is either drawn from public reporting and official records or expressly labeled as one party's litigation allegation. Under Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986), the burden of proving falsity on matters of public concern rests on the plaintiff — and under Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), opinion resting on disclosed, true facts is not actionable. This page discloses its facts, labels its allegations, and signs its opinions.

Third, accurate reporting of allegations in a pending federal case — McDermott v. Mulkey, Hudson, No. CV 2026-121 (E.D. Okla.) — is reporting on a public judicial proceeding, a subject at the very center of public concern. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011).

Fourth, no court may suppress this page in advance. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971). And any official who retaliates against its author for publishing it answers in federal court: jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-63 (1987), reminding every official that the freedom to criticize public officers verbally — let alone in measured print — "is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation."

Conclusion. This page was built on guard and with forethought — respectful by choice, protected by right. It asks nothing of Ms. Hutson except what the Constitution already guarantees everyone else: the record, kept honestly, in the open.