Earlier this year, it was reported that Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan had been indicted.
Dugan allegedly helped an illegal immigrant escape arrest by allowing him to leave through a back door while authorities were given the runaround.
The jurist filed a motion to have her charges dismissed, but to everyone’s surprise, the presiding judge allowed the charges to stand, setting up a trial and potentially leading to jail time for the activist.
When the investigation into Dugan was first announced, the media and Democrats ripped the Trump DOJ for being weaponized against the president's enemies.
That talk died down somewhat when a grand jury returned an indictment against Dugan, but the outrage over the investigation persisted.
Dugan’s attorney, Craig Mastantuono, stated, “As she said after her unnecessary arrest, Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court.”
If convicted, Dugan’s maximum penalties are a $350,000 fine and six years in prison.
When Dugan was interviewed by police, she claimed that all the allegations against her were false, declaring “I didn’t do anything they’re saying.”
She was seen on video saying, “I don’t know if he’s an illegal immigrant, which is what they’re claiming. I’m not supposed to know that. When they come in front of me, I’m not supposed to know that.”
The controversial judge later added, “I did not hide this migrant in the jury room or in my chambers. I had him leave out the back door, which I do when the circumstances warrant it.”
Dugan was seen by witnesses directing the man through a restricted area generally used by deputies, jurors, court staff, and in-custody defendants.
My concern about this case was that the judge who drew the case would outright dismiss the charges, but we have cleared that hurdle.
On Tuesday, Dugan’s motion to dismiss the case was shot down by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Bill Clinton appointee.
He wrote, “A review of the relevant history reveals the government has the better of the argument.” His ruling continued that “the particulars of this case may be unusual,” but “there is no firmly established judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts. 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.’”
Dugan tried to claim immunity, mimicking Trump’s defense against some of the past charges lodged against him. This ruling, however, proves a point I have been making all along… Just because you are in office does not mean every order given is legally protected by that office, even the president, or, in this case, a judge.
