Back in July, we reported that a federal magistrate ruled the case against Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan can proceed. Dugan was arrested in April and is facing charges related to allegations that she helped an illegal immigrant escape ICE arrest by escorting the man from her courtroom.
That man in question was in Dugan's courtroom on charges of domestic battery, and so were his victims. She is also alleged to have falsified court documents to help hide the illegal immigrant from ICE.
Now, a judge has denied Dugan's dismissal on her claims of judicial immunity:
A federal judge on Tuesday allowed the case to proceed against a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested at the county courthouse in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She quickly filed a motion to dismiss the charges.
U.S. District Judge Lynne Adelman on Tuesday rejected Dugan's motion. A magistrate judge in July had recommended the case proceed. Adelman’s decision could be appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorneys for Dugan had no immediate comment.
Dugan has pleaded not guilty to helping the man in the country illegally try to evade authorities. No trial date has been set. She faces up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts.
A hearing for trial scheduling is set for September 3.
The judge didn't buy the defense team's argument of judicial immunity, either.
Here's some more from the opinion:
There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered “part of a judge’s job.” As the magistrate judge noted, the same is true in the bribery prosecutions, concededly valid, where the judges were prosecuted for performing official acts intertwined with bribery. (R. 43 at 29-30.)Defendant argues that the gravamen of the offense in such cases is accepting the bribe (an unofficial act), with the collateral official act done in response presented as an evidentiary detail to complete the story. (R. 45 at 16-20.) The cases do not support this distinction.16 SeeHastings, 681 F.2d at 707 (“In this case we are asked to decide whether an active federal judge can be subject to federal criminal prosecution for acts involving the exercise of his judicial authority.”); Wallace, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109163, at *35, *40-41 (holding that a judge hadcivil but not criminal immunity for his “judicial acts” of sentencing juveniles to detention).17 Or as the government puts it, a judge may use judicial acts or tools as the means to accomplish an unlawful end. 18(R. 46 at 21.) Finally, to the extent defendant argues this category of cases requires the judge act for the purpose of self-enrichment or gratification, she provides no authority for the proposition that the motive must be financial to be “corrupt.” And to the extent defendant contends a court cannot inquire into the judge’s motive for judicial acts, the same could be said in the bribery cases. Accordingly, even if a more limited version of judicial immunity exists, it does not support dismissal of the instant indictment.
Maybe we'll see justice here.
No one is above the law, after all.
Trust in the public judiciary is largely gone already.
This is not necessarily a 'shocking twist.'
No judge is going to risk blowing up the federal judiciary to protect Hannah Dugan.