Trial for Wisconsin Judge Who Allegedly Helped Illegal Alien Avoid ICE to Proceed in December
“Dugan faces six years in prison if she’s convicted on both the obstruction and concealment charges.”
Judge Hannah Dugan of Wisconsin is set to go on trial starting in early December. Last summer, Judge Dugan was arrested for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant escape ICE by using a special exit from the courthouse.
We have followed the case closely, and you can read all about it here.
The Associated Press has details on the trial:
Federal judge says trial for Wisconsin judge accused of helping immigrant will go on next month
A federal judge said Wednesday that the trial for a Wisconsin judge charged with illegally helping an immigrant evade federal agents will go on as planned next month, brushing past talk of a possible plea agreement.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman told prosecutors and attorneys representing Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan during a hearing to assume the trial will begin as planned on Dec. 11 with jury selection.
Federal prosecutors charged Dugan in April with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. According to court documents, Dugan was set to hear a state battery case in April against 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an immigrant who was in the country illegally. Federal agents learned he was scheduled to appear in her courtroom and traveled to the Milwaukee County Courthouse to apprehend him.
Dugan learned the agents were outside her courtroom and led Flores-Ruiz out through a private door, according to the documents. He found his way outside the courthouse but agents caught him after a foot chase. The Department of Homeland Security announced this month that he has been deported.
Dugan faces six years in prison if she’s convicted on both the obstruction and concealment charges. U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel said last week that plea negotiations were underway but Dugan wasn’t interested in a deal.
FOX 6 in Milwaukee has some details on what Dugan’s defense tried to argue:
A day after Dugan was indicted, her attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case – claiming she has judicial immunity and the prosecution violates the 10th Amendment.
Dugan’s defense argued that judicial immunity means she’s protected from prosecution for her official actions as a judge. But the federal government said that immunity only applies to civil lawsuits and does not shield judges from criminal prosecution.
Federal Judge Lynne Adelman on Aug. 26 ruled against Dugan’s motion to dismiss. In his decision, he stated history reveals the federal government has the better argument over Dugan on the question of immunity.
More from Law & Crime:
A series of back-and-forth filings by the defense and DOJ followed — each opposing the other side’s evidentiary arguments.
The court’s order does not contain unalloyed wins or losses for either the government or the defense, but the Trump administration will likely be more pleased with the overall results than Dugan.
At the outset, Adelman granted requests by the government that bar the defense from making arguments over punishment, jury nullification, the sufficiency of discovery in the case, and how Dugan was arrested. The court also disallowed the defense from defining “reasonable doubt.”
The ruling on Dugan’s arrest contains an additional sting. In a footnote, Adelman elaborates to say that the issue is related to defense requests to question FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi under oath — requests the court ultimately denied.
Dugan, for her part, argued that statements made by Patel and Bondi were relevant to show bias in the investigation itself — and should therefore be admitted under the federal evidentiary rules.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There’s no “allegedly” about it. This is a known fact. The only question for the jury is whether this is a crime. But we all know that it most certainly is. I would say that it’s “giving aid and comfort to an invading enemy” which puts this at Treason.
But there is no question about whether the judge intentionally abetted (more than abetted, since it was the judge’s idea, not the illegal’s!!) an illegal alien avoiding detainment by ICE.
I understand what you are saying, but the word allegedly is used because of the presumption of innocence. A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime.
Fun factoid: Did you know he presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution? However, through statutes and court decisions – such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky – it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.
Yes, but the headline did not accuse her of a crime, therefore no presumption of innocence applies.
Yes, it is guaranteed. “Nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Well, kinda sorta, perhaps. Has more to do with protecting the news organization, blog or writer from a libel lawsuit if in the end the accused (Dugan) is actually found not guilty of the crime(s) that she is accused of allegedly committing. It’s a lawyer thing. One version, without the word “allegedly”, could possibly get you sued, the other not. And that’s why news organizations, bloggers, and others that write publicly published material use the word “allegedly” when describing someone who may have committed a crime. It’s just a method to hedge their bets and avoid a lawsuit if the accused is actually found not guilty of the crimes they are accused of committing.
“giving aid and comfort to an invading enemy” is not treason. There are only two things that are treason: Making war on the USA, and “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”. It’s the adherence that makes the treason, not the aid and comfort. The aid and comfort is merely the overt act that expresses that adherence. Giving an enemy aid and comfort for any reason other than adherence to his cause is not treason.
Giving aid and comfort, helping to advance the enemy’s assault, IS adherence – i.e. taking the enemy’s side, for the hard of thinking That’s why the Founders wrote it that way.
No, it isn’t. You are simply wrong. The law is very clear on this: it is the adherence that is the treason, and giving an enemy aid and comfort for any reason other than adherence is NOT treason. If someone is accused of treason it is a VALID DEFENSE to say that they gave the aid and comfort for some other reason, and thus it isn’t treason.
This is not treating a wounded soldier. This is aiding an enemy soldier in his infiltration of our territory. That sort of aid and comfort is treason.
You know, I didn’t imagine I had to point out that the aid and comfort advanced the enemy’s objectives … but I should have known that you would seize that argument in a completely ridiculous way when it was very clear what sort of aid and comfort I was talking about – as we are discussing a specific case right here.
You are too much. Try to derail a debate by pointing out possibilities that are not part of the discussion and have no business being introduced. This is aid and comfort that is, itself, enemy action – promoting and enhancing the invasion, so it’s asinine for you to point out instances of “aid and comfort” that do nothing to advance the enemy’s objectives. But … that’s what you do.
This judge’s actions are clear treason, giving aid and comfort to the invasion.
No, it is not treason in itself. It’s only treason if it is motivated by adherence to the enemy. It is a defense to claim that it was motivated by something else, and the judge must instruct the jurors that if they believe the defendant about his motive then they must acquit. They can only convict if they find beyond reasonable doubt that adherence was the true motive.
You don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t matter that it advances the enemy’s objectives. To be treason, that must be the defendant’s motive.
Again, it doesn’t matter what sort of aid and comfort it is. What matters is the motive. And here the motive is clearly not adherence to any enemy.
And you continue not to understand that it makes no difference whether it advances the enemy’s objectives. All that matters is the defendant’s motive for doing so.
This is not at all controversial. It’s long-settled law. The constitution says “adhering”, so that is the key element.
If she has a crisis of conscience, she can salve her conscience by serving as a jailhouse judge for a few years.
Here’s hoping she gets a trannie jail roommate.
Hannah ‘Diner’ Dugan
-defeated Ozempic in round 1
Let us hope that when Max returns he can teach Hannah how to perjure herself into a lengthy prison sentence.
This is Wisconsin. Question 1: is it going to be a jury trial or before a Federal Judge only? If it is a jury trial, the ingrained Leftist mindset of the people there will likely cause a hung jury if not an outright acquittal. Question 2: Jury trial or not, who appointed the judge? Of late, Federal District Court Judges have evinced a certain pattern of considering opposing American immigration law to be a higher calling than upholding both law and the Constitution. Nothing is certain or predictable, which is not a good sign for a legal system.
Subotai Bahadur
A1). Wisconsin is a flip-floppy state. Trump won 2016 by a hair. Biden won 2020 by a hair. Trump won again in ‘24…. by a hair. Luckily, this trial will occur in the federal eastern district of WI, which excludes the biggest blue pile, Dane county, home to the state capitol Madison and UW-Madison. Of course, the district does include the second biggest blue pile, Milwaukee county, but the surrounding counties are red and pink.
A2). Judge Lynne Adelman applied and was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1997. However, he was praised at the time by WI’s then-Repub-gov Tommy Thompson. Adelman was previously a long time state senator, but. 3-time loser at attempted US House elections. He is a known lefty. His lucid and straight-forward rulings allowing the trial to continue are, honestly, shocking to me. I expected quite the opposite from him.
Another thing to consider: US Attorney Brad Schimel. Former (red) Waukesha County DA, then WI AG, then back to Waukesha as a district judge.
Given all that, and the absolute amount of indisputable evidence – video and testimonial – against Dugan I am confident she will be found guilty.
The question that remains is the result. Will 86-yr old Adelman fall back to his full lefty ways and let her off – a little? A lot?
Surprisingly Federal juries can be conservative more often than not.
Would be fitting if she ends up serving time alongside criminals she put there, if any exist. Won’t happen, unfortunately. Nothing will happen to her. You can take it to the bank. Justice is a fantasy these days.
IDK man. No punishment for this very obvious crime seems like a pretty big line to cross. If a Federal Court can’t bring itself to provide punishment for a State Judge where it is such a clear violation then IMO the ‘system’ is sending the signal that our laws, the lawmakers we elect, We the People who elect them can be ignored with impunity by (literally) unaccountable tyrants in black robes. That’s not a very subtle message to We the People from the ‘system’. Some might interpret it as a provocative declaration that the system views itself as more important than the will of the People and that its functionaries will be shielded from real consequences. That, coming on the heels of the rest of the outrageous actions of the system this century might lead some past their current passive nihilism to a more vigorous stance. IOW it seems to me that a great many folks are still in a ‘please don’t make me care’ phase but this could shift them to ‘ok, y’all made me care, now I’m PO, hold my beer’.
“If a Federal Court can’t bring itself to provide punishment for a State Judge where it is such a clear violation then IMO the ‘system’ is sending the signal that our laws, the lawmakers we elect, We the People who elect them can be ignored with impunity by (literally) unaccountable tyrants in black robes.”
Unless the ACTUAL lesson is that proggy-infested juries nullify justice in all cases no matter what anybody else does.
Sure could… though if the result is the same then the same sort of lesson could be drawn; that the blue jurisdiction ‘system’ not only rejects our Constitutional order but activity seeks to nullify it and resist those who seek to enforce it…which is a pretty fair analogue for entering a state of rebellion.
Any criminals she sentenced to prison would be in state prisons. She’s headed for a federal prison.
Given her size she can sing at her own ending,
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pnbZppai5pA/maxresdefault.jpg
https://www.csaimages.com/pix/COAR/C/C25391_WP.JPG
Bias? She knowingly tried to hide an illegal.
“Dugan wasn’t interested in a deal.” If a dim judge does not cross their lane she should get at least 2yr and possibly up to 6yr. She needs to be an example.
If she’s convicted, I hope the feds push hard for the maximum term and that she gets it.
If you check out the photo up top, you’ll notice that she’s hiding ANOTHER illegal under her bustle.
She will not go to prison if convicted. She will lose her judgeship and her law license and get probation.
Do like it, but I agree.
DON’T like it…
Agree.
I put the odds at 50/50 that she is convicted of anything. One in ten that she spends any time in prison. Maybe a few weekends.
Change the politics and some time would be a dead certainty.
She should be jailed, but at least should lose law license and disbarred.