The federal judge presiding over the criminal case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has largely rejected key defense requests as the high-profile immigration-related trial nears.
In a 21-page decision and order issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Bill Clinton appointee, mostly sided with the U.S. Department of Justice on competing efforts to shape what the jury will — and will not — be allowed to hear.
Earlier this month, prosecutors filed a combined motion in limine, a pretrial request to determine the admissibility of certain evidence, laying out 14 separate asks. Dugan’s attorneys responded with two motions in limine of their own, containing 13 requests. That kicked off a round of filings in which each side opposed the other’s evidentiary positions.
The outcome was mixed on paper, but the Trump administration is likely to be more satisfied overall than Dugan.
At the outset, Adelman granted several government requests that will prevent the defense from making arguments about potential punishment, inviting jury nullification, challenging the sufficiency of discovery, or focusing on the circumstances of Dugan’s arrest. The court also forbade the defense from offering its own definition of “reasonable doubt” to jurors.
The ruling on the arrest issue carries added consequences. In a footnote, Adelman tied that question to defense efforts to call FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi as witnesses — efforts the court ultimately rejected.
Dugan had argued that statements made by Patel and Bondi were relevant to showing bias in the broader investigation and should therefore be admissible under federal evidentiary rules. The court disagreed.
“[W]hile bias is broadly admissible on issues of credibility, neither the Attorney General nor the FBI Director will testify in this case,” the order states. “[D]efendant should not be permitted to inject national political figures into this trial. Any slight probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and wasting time. Defendant’s motion is denied.”
The defense also took a significant hit on the question of Dugan’s official acts as a judge.
In her first motion in limine, Dugan argued that she “had a legal right to engage in those acts,” referring to the conduct that forms the basis of the government’s case.
Prosecutors allege that Dugan impeded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during an operation by helping Mexican national Eduardo Flores-Ruiz — who faces misdemeanor battery charges — exit through a jury door after a hearing in his criminal matter.
Dugan has vigorously contested the premise of the indictment.
“[E]ach of the five acts listed in this indictment were ones that Judge Dugan had a legal right to undertake in the minutes after she learned that ICE agents were outside her courtroom,” the defense wrote. “She was within the lawful powers of her job.”
The DOJ countered that the motion was essentially an attempt to reargue a judicial immunity issue that had already been resolved.
In the end, Adelman agreed with prosecutors.
“As the government notes, defendant’s motion in limine would in effect confer partial judicial immunity and put much of the government’s proof off limits,” he wrote. “I agree that the correct approach is to permit the jury to consider all of defendant’s conduct on April 18, 2025, in deciding whether she concealed an alien under § 1071 or corruptly endeavored to obstruct a proceeding under § 1505.”
The order, however, was not a total defeat for Dugan.
Adelman barred the government from arguing “whether defendant violated the rights of [Flores-Ruiz’s] alleged victims,” finding that such arguments carried a “danger of unfair prejudice.”
The court also granted several of the defense’s more procedural requests, including:
- Sequestration of witnesses
- Provision of written jury instructions
- Prohibiting character evidence
- Prohibiting references to the defendant’s personal beliefs
- Barring the government from “eliciting undisclosed expert testimony”
- Directing the DOJ to turn over certain grand jury materials before trial begins
Dugan is currently scheduled to stand trial on the charges starting Dec. 15.
