Federal Judge Denies Convicted Wisconsin Judge A New Trial

[00:00:17][music] [music] >> Welcome back to Rod Cast guys. Hope you're doing well out there. I'm your host Rod as always. And in this video we're going to be doing a follow up to a conviction that I covered of a judge who helped an illegal escape her courtroom, Judge Dugan. As you guys might remember, we uh covered this about 5 months ago when she was convicted on most of the charges that she was uh convicted on the serious charge and then some of the other charges she was found not guilty on. So it was a mixed verdict by the jury. Uh if you missed that video, go check it out. I'll link it over here.

[00:00:58]But in that video I also told you guys that whatever appeals that she's going to make will most likely fail and that she will be sentenced and the charges will stand, okay? Now we have a federal judge rejecting her arguments. They they were trying to delay the sentencing which was set by the judge. They made some ridiculous argument here. I was uh curious to see which argument they were going to go with to try to uh overturn the conviction.

[00:01:23]Um they went with a very stupid one and they lost, okay? But to be fair, all of them would have been stupid no matter what excuse uh they tried. There are many things that, you know, defense attorneys try to attack in a trial conviction when they're trying to overturn it. I'll cover that after we watch this video, but we got the news yesterday that the uh federal judge in the case has denied the uh request by the defense to overturn uh the conviction and give her a new trial, which is what they were asking for.

[00:01:54]>> A former Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man not in the country legally get away from federal officials will not have a new trial. Today a federal judge denied the motion to overturn a former judge Hannah Dugan's conviction and allow her to get a new trial. Dugan's sentencing was on hold while the judge determined if the case could be dismissed. Dugan was found guilty of obstructing the arrest of Eduardo Flores Ruiz at the Milwaukee courthouse in April of last year. When Dugan will be sentenced has not been announced yet.

[00:02:28]>> So that was very predictable.

[00:02:30]Predictable outcome. They can try I believe there's they have one more appeal left to try to like take it to the appeals court but I don't think it's going to work. I don't think it's worth their time. They might do it anyways but they're going to get rejected. This decision will stand and she will get whatever punishment the judge decides. A sentencing date was not set in this particular order. So the judge denied their request for a new trial based on the legal arguments that were presented here which were ridiculous and unanticipated. I thought they were going to go try to like attack the jury's verdict to say that it doesn't make sense because it was a mixed verdict.

[00:03:04]That's what the defense attorneys were saying after the verdict came out and I told you guys how ridiculous it was then because juries come out with mixed decisions all the time and they don't seem to make sense like in a logical way. If she's not guilty of one thing then how could she be guilty of the other thing, right? That's that's usually what they try to argue. It's a stupid argument because juries don't have to explain themselves like that. Okay? It doesn't matter if it doesn't make any logical sense as long as they have a they have found them guilty and that enough evidence was presented during the trial then the jury has a right to decide we're not going to find this person guilty on this charge and but we are going to find them guilty on that charge. Okay? Now very rarely sometimes jury verdicts are overturned when the judge finds that the jury clearly didn't follow the law. That happens very rarely. Very rarely do judges take up the mantle of being the decider when it comes to someone's guilt, okay? If it was a jury trial, it's up to the jury. Sometimes there are judge trials, there are trials when the the defendant asks for a trial by judge, which is very stupid, by the way.

[00:04:08]But nevertheless, sometimes people do that. They say, "We don't want a jury.

[00:04:11]We just want the judge to decide the case." Okay, that's very rare. Usually in criminal cases like this, there's a jury, and that's a smart way to go because convincing 12 people or convincing one person out of 12 that you're not guilty to get a not guilty is a better chance of success for a criminal than to convince the judge. The judge who knows the law and most likely not going to be very friendly towards like regular criminals, okay? When it comes to immigration, some judges harbor sympathies for immigrants and even illegals. So, they might have more success there, but nevertheless.

[00:04:43]So, District Judge Lynn Adelman rejected Dukens' argument that a change in the appellate precedent had invalidate the government's legal theory behind that charge. So, basically what they're trying to use was another case where the Fourth Circuit, in a case called Hernandez, which I'm not going to go into right now, which had to do with another illegal alien, and an obstruction charge was overturned in that case, okay? By the appeals courts.

[00:05:07]They were trying to use that case to try to argue that the ICE arrest does not count as a proceeding under the obstruction statute, okay? So, they were trying to They're trying to basically delegitimize an ICE arrest inside a courtroom, but it didn't work, okay? But Judge Adelman noted that the precedent wasn't binding upon him because it's from a different circuit because Wisconsin sits in the Seventh Circuit, obviously. So, if you guys don't know how the circuits work, every every federal district court judge falls under a certain circuit, okay? So, the federal law works like this. Supreme Court is up here, and all the courts below, both local courts and federal courts, have to follow Supreme Court precedent. They are the supreme interpreter of the Constitution and federal laws in the land, okay?

[00:05:53]Sometimes even local statutes are debated in the Supreme Court, but usually it's federal cases and constitutional issues that are decided by the Supreme Court.

[00:06:02]But anyways, the Supreme Court's up here, their precedents apply to all courts in the country. If the Supreme Court has not decided the case, the next level of binding is the circuit courts, the appeals court, the federal appeals courts in every all the circuits. We have different circuits in America. We have a total of 13 including the federal circuit. The judges, the federal judges in a certain area where the state of Wisconsin does not fall upon the jurisdiction of the fourth circuit, so they don't have to follow the law follow the precedents that are set by the fourth circuit, okay? When the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court decides that that that is the precedent for the land, then the judge here would be bound by that Supreme Court decision. But as of right now, the court has not decided anything regarding this question about ICE arrest counting as the official proceeding. Uh so the judge here was not bound by the decision in that circuit, okay? The fourth circuit is not binding on Judge Edelman, so he didn't have to listen um and abide by that decision. And I don't think the facts of that case even are on point when it comes to this case, that the circumstances there are completely different from this case. So I don't think that case would even be on point even if it wasn't the same circuit. So yeah.

[00:07:19]Uh not a good argument. That's why it was a stupid argument.

[00:07:22]Dugan's lead attorney, Bob Skupik, noted that the ICE agents arrest people every day and imposing such a broad definition of proceeding puts the threat of a five-year felony sentence over potentially millions of people interacting with them. Uh no, it only puts the threat of a five-year sentence if you try to obstruct and help an illegal get away from the ICE agents, then yeah, that's called obstruction and you should face a 5-year threat of prison. You should stay the hell away from the ICE agents and the illegals and let them do their job. That's the message that you should get from that.

[00:07:55]The judge went on to say the following, "The problem for the defense is that this case did not involve some random encounter on the street. It was a targeted operation conducted pursuant to agency procedures, including the issuance of an arrest warrant for a specific person, Eduardo Flores Ruiz. After the arrest of Ruiz, ICE followed its procedures for reinstatement of the previous order of removal, determining that he should be removed from the country."

[00:08:23]The judge's order does not set a date for sentencing. So, yeah, like I said, dumb argument that even if that case was binding, it's not on point here. So, it wouldn't apply anyways, okay? The case that they're describing, this uh Hernandez case, it is not the the circumstances are not even the same.

[00:08:40]That the case is nothing like what happened here. That was an illegal's being an illegal's obstruction charge being overturned. This is a judge who helped an illegal escape her courtroom.

[00:08:50]How are the facts the same? It's not even similar, okay? Let alone the same, okay? So, the legal precedent wouldn't even apply here. At least I don't think so. That's up to the judges to decide, but nevertheless, I don't think it's the same. I don't think it applies, but that's just my opinion. But, yeah, anyways, next is sentencing.

[00:09:07]When it comes to sentencing, I don't know what the judge is going to do. Um what I want has already happened. I think she's been uh punished uh because she lost her job. She had to resign.

[00:09:16]That's all I wanted, okay? She didn't go around stabbing people, so I don't necessarily need her in a prison cell.

[00:09:21]Some people want her in prison. I don't think she's going to get any prison time. I think what I want her to not is to not be in power so that that she can let illegals escape courtrooms. And she's already got She's never going to be a judge again. I doubt her her the bar in uh Wisconsin will most likely revoke her bar license, which means she's not going to be a lawyer again.

[00:09:41]Okay? But that's to you know, remains to be seen. Prisons cells are to segregate people who are physical danger to our community. That's why we have prisons.

[00:09:49]So, unless they did something horrendous, right? Uh in a civil context uh or in a non-violent context, I rarely advocate for prison for these kind of crimes. What I want is monetary damages and I want them to lose their job, so they don't have the same amount of power. That's the logical way to punish these people, okay? Now, if you go based on pure hatred and anger, which a lot of people are angry at the judge and so so was I, obviously, cuz I don't agree with what she did. She let an illegal escape.

[00:10:16]So, I you know, I have problems with that. But I don't think putting her in a uh metal cell is the way to address that, okay? Because she's not a physical danger. So, isolating her in a cage like an animal is not the solution in this case, in my opinion, okay? Now, if the illegal went on to kill somebody after she open to the prison idea because that's horrendous, okay? She didn't do the the killing, but somebody she let go did it, okay? So, that's a what that's much worse, obviously. That didn't happen here. Um so, I think she's been punished. Um I don't want her to be a judge. That's the main thing I want. I want her robes gone um when it comes to, you know, her judgeship. Um and that's happened. So, I think she's been punished, but nevertheless, it's up to the judge here to decide what the sentence will be. Um sentencing hasn't been set yet, but nevertheless, she will be sentenced eventually. And uh I don't know the judge I can't really predict what he's going to do.

[00:11:16]He seems to be fair, at least when it comes to this decision. He's, you know, balancing both sides here, so I don't think he's terribly biased. Um but we'll see what the judge does, and I'll be making a video if the decision is outrageous, but I think for the most part, I got what I wanted. And that's what I got to say for this video. Thanks so much for watching. I'll see you guys all in my next one.