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 monthA 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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY