Jury Selected for Dugan Trial

Milwaukee Federal Courthouse. Photo by Mariiana Tzotcheva

Jury selection began Thursday in the criminal case against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, with most of it taking place behind closed doors.

Dugan faces charges of concealing an individual from arrest and obstructing a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation stemming from an incident that took place at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman is presiding over the case. He began jury selection by asking the several dozen prospective jurors a few general questions, including whether they had ever been to the county courthouse or if they were unable to be fair and impartial jurors.

Adelman then moved jury interrogation to his chambers, with agreement from both the prosecution and the defense. Addressing media covering the trial, Adelman said prospective jurors would be questioned questioned about potential biases or prejudices in private because “it elicits information that the lawyers think would make the jurors uncomfortable answering candidly.” 

Ahead of the trial, potential jurors were asked to fill out a questionnaire probing their political and social affiliations and media consumption. The circumstances of the case made “a prospective juror’s political views, activities, or associations” relevant to ensuring a fair and impartial jury, Adelman wrote in an order authorizing the questionnaire.

The case against Dugan has attracted national attention and touches on the politics of the Trump administration’s conflict with the judiciary and aggressive immigration enforcement operations, which have included large, military-style operations in American cities, as well as arrests at local courthouses and immigration courts.

When Dugan was arrested, FBI Director Kash Patel announced it on social media. Later, the same day, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi discussed the case on Fox News, saying the judge’s arrest was “sending a very strong message” to judges across the country who think they are “above the law.”

The federal government alleges Dugan confronted federal agents outside her courtroom in April after they arrived to arrest an immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was appearing before Dugan on state charges. Dugan allegedly directed the agents to speak with Chief Judge Carl Ashley, then adjourned Flores-Ruiz’s case off the record, directing him and his attorney to leave by way of a door used by jurors. Federal agents arrested him outside the courthouse. Flores-Ruiz was deported to Mexico in November.

Dugan’s legal team has previously suggested it will present evidence at trial contradicting the version of events presented by federal prosecutors in the indictment and federal charging documents. Leading up to the trial, Dugan’s attorneys moved to have the charges dropped, arguing the judge is immune from criminal prosecution for her actions at the courthouse, which they say fall within the accepted ambit of her office.

Dugan appeared in court Thursday for jury selection alongside her attorneys Steven Biskupic, Jason Luczak and Nicole M. Masnica. U.S. Attorney Richard G. Frohling is leading the prosecution. He appeared in court Thursday alongside Kelly Watzka, Keith Alexander and a special agent with the FBI.

At the start of the proceedings, Adelman read off a list of potential witnesses who would be called to testify in the case, including a handful of federal agents and attorneys from the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, as well as several circuit court judges including Ashley, Marisabel Cabrera, Kristela Cervera, Katie Kegel and Laura Gramling Perez. Another potential witness was identified as “Tom Barrett, retired.”

After a break for lunch, Adelman and the attorneys called a handful of jurors for follow-up questions on the record. One juror was asked if they could presume Dugan innocent until proven guilty. The juror waffled while answering and was struck from the pool. Another juror was asked if they had formed opinions about the case, or whether they can follow the judge’s instructions concerning the law.

One juror was questioned after indicating they supported the federal government on a questionnaire. This juror was asked if they would give extra weight to testimony from law enforcement or ICE agents. The juror said they would, because these officers were “vetted” for their job. He also said he has had positive experiences with law enforcement in the past. “They were all courteous and did everything by the book,” he said.

When asked whether he could weigh all testimony evenly, even if there is conflict between witnesses’ statements, the juror said, “I can absolutely be objective” and “I would have to see where the facts lead in the case.”

The defense moved to strike him as a candidate, arguing that the government’s case against Dugan would rely on “days of law enforcement testimony.” But the prosecution argued the juror was “unequivocal” in his ability to be objective. The motion to strike was denied.

A fourth juror, who was ultimately not removed from the jury pool, said he believed federal agents should be allowed to enforce immigration laws and uphold the country’s “sovereignty.” He also stated he would be able to follow Adelman’s instructions and that he would follow the evidence presented in the case.

Preliminary jury instructions were given and a jury was empaneled. The trial begins on Monday, Dec. 15.