You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
My name is Jim Santel and I am your host this hour and also next hour as we pursue, as we always do, information, news items, circumstances, events in the areas of the administration of the rule of law.
the pursuit of justice in Wisconsin and America across the planet and inviting you to be a part of that discussion, that exploration of the geography of our times by calling in, calling into our program at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752.
4842.
I am joined in the studio here in Racine Park by my wonderful producer, Greg, and together we are going to be soliciting and encouraging enthusiastically your communication with us about the many issues that are on our agenda.
You can also be a part of this discussion, this exploration, this review of all things related to justice issues by texting us, by engaging us in some of most important discussions.
about our times in these many areas.
Indeed, that's where the name of our show comes from.
Amicus friend, Amicus Curie friend of the court.
The notion is the reason why we are on civic media is to serve as your friend, providing information that will help you to
come to your own conclusions, your own perspectives, your thoughts on these major issues in the area of rule of law.
It is only premised upon an accurate and complete.
and even sometimes very particularized exploration and exposition of some of these major issues that we can have intelligent and good and reasonable and productive discussions about what we should and should not do in response to these rule of law events in our lives.
It is in that setting, in that context that we invite you to be a part of our discussion this weekend as we pursue here on Amicus.
of you, a number of very hot topics.
Let me tell you what those are.
In the second hour, in our second hour, we are going to be exploring a number once again of rule of law snapshots, including things coming out of federal district court judges and also a Wisconsin circuit court judge.
We'll talk about the decisions that they have made.
We'll talk also necessarily, as we always do, about the United States Supreme Court.
Yes,
They're not in session, not in formal public session this week, nor next week or the week after that.
They come back in mid-December for more oral arguments, which we have talked about, but that doesn't mean that they're not showing up to work.
Indeed, they are.
And they said four major things this past week about cases that are pending or going to be pending in front of them.
That involved a case in focusing upon jury selection and whether or not racial discrimination
was a part of a decision to place on the jury.
Various members of that jury will talk all about what's called a Batson.
B-A-T-S-O-N challenge that is now on the docket of the Supreme Court.
We'll talk about how the Supreme Court decided not, not to stop a piece of litigation being pursued against the government by, yes, that's right, immigration judges suing, suing under a First Amendment principle, the government of the United States of America, the Supreme Court, not, not interceding to stop that.
We'll talk about the Supreme Court's rejecting a petition to stop the imposition of a death.
penalty case.
We have talked about those kinds of things.
They have done that this past week.
And then we're also going to talk about a decision that the Supreme Court made not to review, not to review a case coming out of Texas with respect to book bans.
All of that rendered by the Supreme Court this past week as the Supreme Court now hits a magic number, if you will, for the number of cases pending in front of it.
That number is now 50.
Probably, probably before February or March, that number will grow by another 10, maybe 15 cases, landing somewhere around 65 or so.
And again, they will continue to have oral arguments on many, if not all of those cases.
We'll tell you what's going on in those Supreme Court decisions, not substantive, not yet resolving those cases, but making decisions about what they will hear and what they will not hear.
All of that is coming up.
here on amicus a law review we are going to devote however most of our first hour to what is undeniably the major rule of law event the major administration of justice event here in wisconsin arguably throughout the nation and also grabbing attention internationally and that of course is the recently completed trial of wisconsin circuit
Court Judge Hannah Dugan.
We have talked about this case in the past, and you know well based upon your own review of the news reports on this that late this past week, Judge Hannah Dugan found guilty, found guilty of obstructing federal agents who were seeking to arrest an undocumented immigrant outside her courtroom way back in April.
She was found guilty of a felony count returned by a grand jury.
Interestingly,
In a split verdict, she was found not guilty.
She was acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of concealing that person from agents.
Two counts in the indictment, returned by the grand jury way back in the spring of this year, now going to trial this past week in front of Judge Lynn Edelman in the federal district court.
right there in downtown Milwaukee.
Frankly, not so far, almost walking distance from the circuit court, the Wisconsin court where these events actually happened.
All of that, all of that appropriately attracting our attention here on this broadcast, your attention as well.
And what we're going to be doing in this first hour,
Most importantly is inviting your questions, your specific comments, your inquiries, the things that have got you scratching your head about what happened, what didn't happen in this case.
We will respond to all of those, especially in the second portion of this first hour of our broadcast.
And we will continue to answer those questions as you call in and text in at 855-752-4842, because that is what, once again, this broadcast is all about.
We want to not only
provide you with insight and perspective about the things that have happened,
criminal trial now concluded of Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, but also some perspectives on how it is we can think about the result, how we should think about the process, and yes, indeed, what process follows this.
We're going to spend a lot of time chatting with you, talking with you, explaining what happens next.
Why is it that the case has not been subject to sentencing, not even scheduled for sentencing?
What is an appeal all about?
What will that look like?
What are the sentencing guidelines?
What are these post-trial motions that counsel is now talking about?
What does all of that mean?
We'll get to all of that as we explore and again provide you with answers to your questions, your perspectives, your inquiries about what happened in the rule of law.
the administration of justice this past week.
And that brings me to some preliminary observations that echo much of the things that I've said in the past about the nature of criminal prosecutions and the ways in which all Americans, regardless of your political views, your partisan perspectives, all Americans, regardless of your views about the ultimate result here in the Hannah Dugan trial, despite your perspectives on whether or not the case should have been
brought at all about the ways in which the government has behaved and ways in which the Defense Council represented Judge Dugan.
All of those kinds of things are the subjects appropriately of discussion in the public domain.
Why?
because we have in this nation a First Amendment and we pursue those First Amendment discussions, sometimes even arguments.
Yes, that's right, arguments with a small A, not premised upon violence, not based upon attacks in literal sense of the word, but based upon constructive and informed and informing, sometimes even inspiring discussions about what has happened.
That's how we get smarter.
That's how we get better.
That's how we explore not only our own ideas, but we explore ideas presented to us that may be different from our own.
And that, once again, animates Amicus.
A lot of you that animates my discussion with you this weekend.
Let me begin with some thoughts on general perspectives.
Many of them, as I said, mirroring what we have talked about in the past.
They fall into the category of general behavior in America these days.
Always been
not that you and I, all of us, can believe two non-contradictory things at the same time.
I can believe something on the left and the right, not politically, but I can believe things that are black and white.
I can believe things that are in this bucket or that bucket without being contradictory.
I can believe two things at the same time and not be inconsistent.
not be incoherent, and I can believe those things based upon an understanding of the issues.
So let me offer you a couple of those instances, a couple of those ways in which all of us can believe two things, two things at the same time, and that we do not have to choose, not have to choose between these in animating and in articulating, discussing the things that we think are important.
Let's first
of all talk about what trials are all about.
You have heard me say this before when I was an assistant United States attorney, and then a United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and that is this.
And it is stunning to hear, and I know friends, colleagues, and maybe even some of you are stunned to hear a former prosecutor say this, but it is true that every single criminal prosecution, misdemeanor, felony,
State court federal court whoever the defendant is and we have talked about a lot of them in the national domain in the local domain Whoever that is it doesn't matter all all criminal prosecution partakes of human tragedy Let me say that again every single case involving the administration of the criminal law and bringing cases to trial
also disposing of cases, even pretrial
All of that is human tragedy.
Why?
First of all, we sometimes forget that in every single criminal case, there are human beings involved.
There are lots of them all the time.
There are certainly witnesses.
There are attorneys.
There are judges.
There are court staff.
There are members of the jury.
And most importantly, there are often victims of the crimes alleged.
And at the top of the list, there is a defendant.
All of those people are human beings.
And where does the tragic portion of this
come in because of the recognition that we ought to do criminal prosecutions.
Why is it made?
There's been a finding by a grand jury.
There's been a finding by someone we have charged with prosecutorial discretion to make the decision to charge someone with a crime.
And that is a recognition not only of the humanity involved, the human beingness involved, but also the tragedy of this, that someone has presumably, allegedly, made a decision, a series of decisions that are contrary to idol standards.
They violate the law, they violate even more about what we think about a civilized and calm and decent civilized society.
It is human tragedy that we do that, and yet, and yet,
Also, ebserie, both of those things.
Importance of criminal prosecution to address those violation law.
Even when I recognize that the process partakes of human tragedy, it is absolutely necessary that we do this.
What?
To ensure deterrence.
Both specific deterrence, general deterrence, to uphold the law, to ensure that the administrative justice is promoted for the community in which we all live, that the rule of law is paramount, and that no one is above the law.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about those two things that you can believe at the same time, the human tragedy of trials, and the absolute necessity of doing them here as Amicus,
a lot of you, continues.
My name is Jim Santel, your host this hour and next hour, and these major issues in the area of rule of law, administration of justice, operation of government, including the courts.
I am here in the civic media studios here in Racine, along with my terrific producer, Greg, and together we're taking your phone calls, your texts, about any of these very, very important issues on our syllabus.
That number is 855-752.
for 842, giving you special encouragement in this broadcast to do just that, call in with your questions, especially as we get to the process points.
What's going to happen next?
Ask me questions about what's going to be happening in the wake of this momentous and very serious jury verdict that was returned late this past week in the trial of Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan.
offering some initial perspectives, again, about the fact that every single criminal trial, including this one, partakes of human tragedy.
There is nothing, there is nothing to be joyful about this.
And throughout the time when I was U.S.
Attorney and Assistant U.S.
Attorney, other colleagues and I always recognized the solemnity, the seriousness of what we were doing.
No one, no one inside and outside the U.S.
Attorney's office takes any joy in this undertaking.
It is solemn, it is serious, and indeed I would offer to you that even in the discussions legitimately had about the results of this prosecution, whether you agree with the result or not.
There is no joy to be had in this.
There is nothing joyful.
There is nothing happy about the process.
There is nothing happy about the result returned by a criminal jury that a defendant, in this case, in any case, has violated the law of our nation, violated the law of our state, violated the fundamental principles by which the rule of law proceeds.
There are no congratulations.
There's nothing about this that should be the source or the reason for celebration.
There is no human tragedy here.
And yet at the same time, I can believe something else.
And that is also what animated me and my colleagues for all the years that we have.
And as they continue to do this work, and that is that it's absolutely necessary to bring people to justice through our process in the federal system when a grand jury returns a verdict.
They have found that this particular defendant or defendant
has been identified as someone who is engaged in criminal conduct by probable cause.
That's the standard.
And now, and now we've got a trial jury that has made a finding, a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimously, that a defendant has, in fact, committed the offense conduct.
Hannah Duggan is now a convicted
criminal defendant and she she has now suffered that there is nothing to be celebrating about that there is nothing to be joyful about that but we also recognize the legitimacy of our system and indeed one of the other things
believing two things at the same time is if you believe in the jury system here, if you believe in the conduct of the rule of law here, if you believe in the conduct of the rule of law in the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee and this and other cases, you must necessarily believe it in other places as well.
That includes prosecutions that you may support, you may not support, you may view as appropriate, you may view as inappropriate.
If you're embracing
Race is of the rule of law system that needs to be consistent, that needs to be saying to you and to everyone, while you may not agree with the result, the system, the system.
is what we advance as being important and key to our system.
Once again, I can believe two things at the same time.
With respect to the reason for why we do these criminal trials, let's think about that as well.
Hopefully animating discussions going forward here.
We do criminal prosecution in America, state prosecution, federal prosecution, municipal prosecution, all sorts of different courts around our nation and here in Wisconsin for two reasons.
Those reasons are...
specific and general deterrence.
What is specific deterrence?
It is saying to a particular defendant, and yes, it could be an individual, a person, thus the human tragedy portion of this, could also be a corporation.
Yes, indeed, you can indict, you can charge companies for their violations of the criminal law.
But we are doing that to say to that entity, to that person, stop it.
We don't want this to happen anymore.
We want you to be deterred from doing this ever again.
That's the reason why we
brought you into the justice system, we may in fact impose a sentence of some incarceration, or we may do something else, but all of that process is to deter you specifically from ever doing again the thing that you're charged with doing.
That's specific deterrence, and then there's general deterrence.
What is general deterrence?
General deterrence is this notion that as you watch, whether it's the trial of Hannah Dugan, the trial of anyone else going on in America right now,
The concept is that you want to deter the community, the public, from doing the kind of thing that you are watching, that you're observing, that you're reading about, thinking quite graphically that if I engage in that same conduct, whatever it is, I might suffer the same consequences.
I might be brought into the system.
I might be subject to sentencing for my conduct.
trying to stop people who might otherwise engage in crime from doing it themselves, just by virtue of publicizing and doing the criminal prosecutions themselves, sending messages about the consequences of engaging in crimes, deterring people, stopping people who might otherwise be engaged, inclined.
to do crimes, stopping them from doing that.
It's called general deterrence, thus the general population.
And again, absolutely necessary as a result of our system and the fact that we all live together in our system at the same time, at the same time, even as I believe all of those things
Can I criticize the results?
Can I criticize and comment on the specifics in a case?
Of course I can.
Of course all of us can.
That's what the First Amendment is all about.
First Amendment is not without restrictions, as we have spoken about in great length on this broadcast in the past.
But the First Amendment has, as this sacrosanct concept, the notion that I can indeed engage with fellows
of all sorts of persuasions in my community on things with which we do not agree.
That's the First Amendment, and I can believe that even as I embrace all of these other things.
When we come back, we'll talk more specifically about what's next in the Hannah Dugan proceedings here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salaro Viewer.
here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, inviting you to join me and my terrific producer, Greg, as always, phone number, text number, 855-752-4842.
We are talking, and yes, soliciting, encouraging, enthusiastically, your questions about the Hannah Dugan trial now concluded this past week, resulting in her conviction on a major felony charge involving the...
of federal agents who were there in the county courthouse in April of this year, attending to arrest an immigrant outside her courtroom, also a defendant in her courtroom.
A lot of discussion, obviously, during the course of this past week about the facts of this case, a fascinating trial academically, legally.
socially, politically, all those things wrapped into one.
Also a dramatic trial because of the number of judges involved by my count six, six judges appearing at various times during the course of the four days of the proceeding, one sitting in the major position, that is the presiding judge, Lynn Edelman, he's the federal district court judge, who about whom we will hear more in the weeks and months and arguably years ahead, we had, of course, the defendant herself.
Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan sitting at the defense table.
And then four other judges, two of them appearing on behalf of the prosecution, Carl Ashley, he's the chief judge of the Wisconsin Circuit Court from Milwaukee County coming in and talking about his development of a protocol that Wood and Will perhaps has, maybe has not yet happened yet, guiding the manner in which
both of the interests of law enforcement and of the administration of justice can be addressed.
That is how you go about arresting people in a public
a building, including a courthouse.
What are the protocols?
What are the practices that you need to address and need to invoke in balancing the obligation of law enforcement to make arrests with the equal obligation of judges to conduct their proceedings as they should in their courtrooms?
He's working on that.
He testified about that.
We got another set of statements by Costello Cervera, who is a Wisconsin circuit court judge, much involved in the facts of this case, also
seen on some of the video, providing very compelling testimony about how uncomfortable she felt when she was involved in this process, commenting along the way about how she does not feel that a judge should be in any way involved in interfering with
becoming involved in arrests of this sort, another prosecution witness, and then two other judges appearing on behalf of the defense, Katie Cagle and Laura Gramling-Perez, talking about this issue of the development of a protocol by which the judges presently and in the future would provide guidance, would be giving guidance, and therefore follow guidance related to how to do this.
How do you balance the needs of law enforcement
make arrests with the legitimate needs of controlling a courtroom and doing that in a way that advances the interests of justice in that environment.
They talked about the emails back and forth among all of them and the fact that there may have been some confusion about exactly what the rules and regulations, what the protocols are all about.
There were other witnesses as well.
First day, lots of agents coming in, setting the stage for what happened.
providing information, yes, about the doors and the stairways, the hallways, the courtroom itself.
An awful lot of testimony about things said, even by court staff.
And we did hear at some point based upon the recorded audio from the defendant, from Circuit Court Judge Anna Dugan, as she was engaging with
others as these events were happening, all of that a part of the prosecution case, all of that a part of the defense case.
And so, what do we make of the procedure?
What principles should we take away from all of that?
And that is first and foremost implicit in my general observations about the human tragedy nature of this the absolute necessity to engage in criminal prosecution the respect for the jury system and the jury verdicts that come out even while we have in America the right to express disagreement with everything from charging decisions the ways in which cases are prosecuted and defended we can do all
that even while we do all of that and embrace the system that produces often an imperfect result but the best result we possibly can all of that underscoring the extraordinary nature of what we saw just this past week six judges appearing in one proceeding over the course of about three and a half just about four days in the wake of that in the wake of that trial reaffirming some other
core principles that is the government as always has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to prove its case that is paramount there is never a shifting of the burden and indeed to make clear what James Madison and George Mason wrote 236 years ago there is no obligation on the defense in this case Judge Hannah Dugan to present any evidence at all
She and her counsel could sit there completely silent.
They did not do that.
And yes, indeed, there would have been questions about the efficiency and advocacy and strength of her advocacy.
But the reality is, as a legal matter, as a constitutional matter, a criminal constitutional matter, the defense has no obligation to present any evidence whatsoever.
It is all on the prosecution.
Burden is complete there to show what?
To show that they've proven their case.
In this case,
Two counts the jury in the end found that as to one of them the government had not meant its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the other one They said they did to do that to do that based upon the credible reliable material Representing the presentation material and evidence throughout the trial of this case.
That's a fundamental notion No shifting of burden here from start to finish
And the attorneys on both sides argued that point.
Again, the prosecution saying that the witnesses presented, some of the other visual information presented, supports the finding and arguing to the jury in closing arguments that that's exactly what this jury should find.
The defense also afforded an opportunity in our due process system to speak to the jury at the end, just as prosecutors and
Defense attorneys did in their opening statements to try to convince them of the rightness of their positions.
That's called closing argument.
Significantly, the things the lawyers say, opening statements, closing arguments, those are not pieces of evidence.
They're argument, but they're not a part of the.
batch, if you will, the collection of evidence in the case.
And indeed, Judge Edelman told the jury that they should not disregard the things that the attorneys say, but those are things to help them understand and analyze the evidence.
And their verdict in the end has got to be based upon the evidence and not the things that the attorneys say.
The statements made by the attorneys are not evidence in and of themselves.
The judge also said, of course, to them, you invoke your common sense.
You invoke the things that have animated you as a person, as a human being in Wisconsin, throughout your life, in other places.
As you've traveled around, you invoke your common sense, your general experiences in your life.
All of that you can bring even as, even as the judge provides them with information called
jury instructions about what the law is.
The judge provides the jury with the law.
The jury then decides the facts.
And indeed, when the jury retired after these closing arguments, after the conclusion of all the proceedings, that was their assignment.
Determine whether or not, number one, the government had
proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
They had to find that unanimously.
As to both counts, unanimously finding as to one count, the government had not met its burden.
As to the other counts saying, yes, unanimously, the government has done just that.
And that's the verdict that they returned on those two counts.
So what happens next?
What happens next?
Well, what did happen next immediately?
We know that since the time of her arrest, way back in the springtime of this year,
not been in custody, although she was in fact arrested at the Wisconsin Circuit Court building and was handcuffed and moved around the federal courthouse in shackles.
while as she was anticipating making her appearance, her first appearance there in federal court, the magistrate judge at that time and to this day, the courts in the Eastern District of Wisconsin have found that Judge Hannah Duggan is not a threat to the community, that she is not a risk of flight.
Why do they make that determination?
Those are the two things you consider in determining whether or not someone should be detained.
Pre-trial.
and now post trial.
In releasing Judge Hannah Dugan, even after she is found guilty of this singular count in the indictment against her, the judge has effectively said, you are not a risk of flight.
You are not a danger to the community.
I'm releasing you on your own recognizance.
Had she been acquitted on both counts, plainly, the case would have been discharged and gotten rid of in that fashion, free to go.
Here, there will be more proceedings.
But she is, she is
released on her own recognizance.
That is an appropriate decision for Judge Edelman to have made under these circumstances.
This Wisconsin Circuit Court judge was never, was never a risk of flight, a danger to this community as other defendants are.
And yes, indeed, there are times when especially post verdict, even if you are on your own recognizance before the verdict comes back.
during pretrial proceedings, there are times when the judge will then remand, that's the word for basically send you into a custodial status.
The judge did not do that here again because Hannah Dugan does not meet either of those standards for detention pending what's happening next.
So what is happening next?
What do we know about what's going to happen next?
Well, we know that again, because of the split nature of this verdict, we knew from the very moment that that verdict was
return the split decision on those two counts, that that too would probably be the focus of some post-trial proceedings, and indeed almost immediately before the courthouse was dark, after the conclusion of this trial, counsel, defense counsel Stephen Bisubic, my former colleague,
former United States attorney, prior to my term in that same office, told the community that the defense on behalf of Judge Hannah Dugan is going to challenge the verdict.
Can he, can the defendant do that?
The answer is absolutely yes.
There's a thing called Rule 29 that basically says, Judge, you can substitute your view, your judgment, if indeed you find that the verdict cannot be supported in any way by the facts the evidence presented during the course of the trial.
It is an extraordinary remedy.
Defense counsel are obliged to make that motion and even to argue it, and it is very seldom granted, but in this case,
In this case, playing the defense counsel on behalf of Judge Hannah Dugan will be making these motions.
The judge has set a briefing schedule for this, contemplating the filing of those motions in January into February, responses by the government to those, and what is the basis, among other things, on which the defense, upon which Hannah Dugan will ask for the verdict to be overturned.
Extraordinarily, but overturned nonetheless by this judge, she is going to say that because these two verdicts, one finding her guilty, one finding her not guilty, are premised upon the same factual predicates, the same set of facts, the same things happened, and because, as the defense will argue, the elements of the offense as to both counts are similar,
Virtually the same, maybe not completely the same.
Therefore, the verdict is irreconcilable.
It is not premised upon an understandable, coherent verdict that you can identify a through line on.
That's something that the facts will uniformly support.
Therefore, the defense will say, Judge, throw out the verdict as to the finding by the jury about guilt as to that second count.
That's going to be the motion.
that will be filed in January.
In the meantime, in the meantime, Defense Council preparing that, Hannah Dugan again stays at administrative leave by the Supreme Court.
And as we come back, we'll tell you more about further proceedings in this matter, taking us well into 2026 and arguably beyond, here on Amicus, a lot of
you.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website,
We are talking appropriately about this major rule of law event in our nation's history, our state's history, and that is the trial and then the conviction of Judge Hannah Dugan just this past week in the federal court in the eastern district of Wisconsin based upon a grand jury indictment alleging that she had obstructed federal agents who were seeking to arrest an immigrant outside her courtroom
all of those things now resolved at least for now by virtue of the return of a journey verdict, finding her guilty of that felony count.
We're talking about what happens next.
She has been released on her own cognizance, not a risk of flight, not a danger of the community.
And the judge based upon defense counsel's request has now set a briefing schedule on what are called post conviction motions.
It's important to talk a bit about the language of this.
Hannah Dugan has now been convicted of this offense conduct.
There has not yet been a judgment entered.
And yes, that sounds like a lot of legal language, and it is, but it's important because a judgment is entered only after sentencing.
That has not happened yet.
Instead, what the judge has said he is going to do is he is going to accept the motions, the pleadings, the memorandums, the arguments of the parties, principally by the defense that
the verdict because it is split in nature cannot be reconciled and for that reason the defense will argue you can't make sense of this therefore the verdict in an extraordinary petition under rule 29 has to be thrown out it is significant that it is an extraordinary petition an extraordinary move but
It is significant that, late this past week, in a completely different setting, completely different forum, Federal District Court Judge LaShon Darcy Hall, on Friday overturned the conviction of a man for killing Jason Mazzel, unrelated to this case completely.
He was known as Jam Master Javis, the pioneering DJ of the Grapp Group Run DMC.
The man, Carl Jordan, was convicted in February of 2024 of killing Mazzell.
What the judge did in that case is she basically found that the government, even though the conviction has been returned by a
jury found that the government had lacked proof that the murder was drug-related, which was an element of the offense.
And in the end, the judge found that the government never presented evidence that the defendant here was wrongly, had been wrongly involved in this, and was dissatisfied about the shares of his proceedings, all sorts of specific details.
All of these details were crucial, the judge said, to proving a drug-related murder, saying
that there was no evidence of that.
And it says, from what evidence then, could the jury have reasonably inferred that Jordan, who is the defendant, sought to retaliate against the victim for the failure of these drug dealers?
There was none.
Why do I raise that?
Because it's an indication of a judge doing one of these extraordinary things, which is replacing the court's judgment for a previous conviction.
So it does happen.
And it did happen late this past week.
The defense in the Hannah Dugan matter is asking for this.
same thing.
And if in fact, if in fact the judge grants that motion, what that means is, of course, then there has to be a new trial.
And the judge would presumably conduct that down the road.
It is unlikely he will do that, but that is a part of our process.
And we embrace all of that as a part of our embracing our criminal justice system.
It is only after that, only after that, if he denies that motion, says, no, I'm supporting what the jury has done here.
And usually judges
do.
They're loath to intervene and upset the decision of a jury.
If Judge Edelman does reject this motion from the defense, then he will schedule a sentencing.
And we'll talk more about what happens in connection with that sentencing at some point well into 2026.
As always, on this matter and all other matters here in Amicus, we appreciate calls, questions, and we have Mark from Pray Do Sack.
Mark calling in you've been on hold for a while.
We appreciate your call your inquiry about the subject matter on our docket today.
Go ahead mark
That It is just a you know that were any of the jurors afraid if they would have returned a verdict of not guilty You know were they afraid there that's something that occurred to me, but also considering the whole obstruction thing
is that how many of these Republicans actually supported the obstruction of the recount, the election results in 2020 that happened on January 6th with a whole elaborate conspiracy going on there, that how many of them were actually privy to or were aware of and did not do their duty to report and prevent the obstruction that occurred on January 6th of 2021,
but now they're screaming for Hannah Dugan's scalp, as far as Wisconsin Republicans go, and it just seems ironic to me that she'd not, if you prevent the arrest of this man, I think that in one point I would say that the federal government interfere, obstruct the initial charges going against the defendant in the Hannah Dugan case that they attempted to obstruct her proceeding in that courtroom.
And
This is precisely the kind of good discussion that should be out there, right?
We've got these First Amendment rights.
And to talk about consistency, right?
That's really what you're talking about.
If you are someone who finds obstruction, and I suspect we all do, a problem when it comes to law enforcement,
consistency, right?
And that's what I was talking about at the start of our hour as well.
That is also a part of the discussion that can and should proceed in the public domain.
It doesn't mean, it doesn't mean that we are undermining the process.
We recognize at the same time, I think implicit mark in what you were saying is the concern about the tragic nature of this, the necessary effect of what happens in a trial and embracing
system imperfect but nonetheless is is key to our overall rule of law administration and once again as you've just done mark enforcing this notion that we can and should discuss this as a way of ensuring consistency and engaging in the public discourse that America is all about mark is always appreciate your comment and will solicit other questions as we always do into our second hour that phone number once again eight five five seven five two four eight
when we come back in that second hour, let's talk about what happens after these motions are filed.
What about an appeal?
What about the long-term impacts of what the jury did here on Amicus?
A lot of you.
This is amicus a lot of you My name is Jim Santel and I am your host for this the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast about all things related to the rule of law I am in the Racine studio taking your phone calls at 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 taking your texts as well questions increase observations We already heard in the first hour from mark
identifying what he's already identified himself as being some of the inconsistency in some of the exchanges, the communications, the debate.
about what happened in that federal court in Milwaukee just this past week.
And we now also receive from Jack in Madison, another good question about the result here and what happens next, which is going to be the focus of this segment of our broadcast.
Jack asks, if in fact the governor of the state of Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers, can commute Judge Duggan's conviction?
And the answer to the question is no.
He cannot.
Why?
The proceeding here is in front of Judge Lynn Edelman, and that is in the federal system.
And so under our federal constitution, there's only one person who can commute or pardon someone who has been convicted, a judgment entered in our federal system, and that is the president of the United States of America.
This is a federal case, and therefore our state governor,
Tony Evers, does not have any constitutional, any legal authority to commute to pardon this sentence at all.
If this had been tried in state court, even in Milwaukee County, another court room someplace in the state courts of our state, that would be different.
And indeed, under those circumstances, the governor could have addressed through the process that he has established, like previous governors, for reviewing.
reviewing the circumstances under which a pardon, a commutation should be entered.
Great question, Jack, because it enables us to think through, again, another issue we'll talk about at the end of our discussion of this, which is federal and state systems and the significance of understanding the two of them and the importance of asking good questions, Jack, like you have, about how they are interplayed.
The question, Jack, plainly comes from the notion that this is a case being tried.
in federal court involving, yes, the conduct of federal agents, but also involving centrally the conduct of a state court judge.
And virtually all of these witnesses are state court judges appearing in federal court, as I said before, quite an extraordinary circumstance to witness just this past week.
Both Mark and Jack appreciate very much those good inquiries, comments made about
the recent trial and now the conviction of Judge Hannah Dugan in federal court.
So what happens next?
Well, again, if in fact Judge Lynn Adelman decides not to adopt if he rejects this notion.
Being presented by the defense that somehow these the split verdict is inconsistent You can't reconcile the two of them based upon the same fact situation again difficult to do that it is a high bar but not impossible as I said and Offered the specific example of another federal judge doing just that in another setting recently Let us suppose that he does in fact deny those motions then then he will schedule this on for sentencing.
How does
What does that look like inside the federal system?
The answer is, in addition to setting a date, a specific date for sentencing back in that very courtroom.
where the trial took place.
The judge will also order the preparation of something called a pre-sentence report.
Who does that?
It's the probation office, pretrial services.
These are specialized agents and officers who put together basically a recommendation, a set of facts, a report to the judge on what happened in this case.
Of course, he knows it well because he presided over this trial, but also a huge amount of information about who the defendant is presented to the judge.
so that he, other cases, she, can make an informed decision about who this person is who's appearing before him or her now for sentencing.
What is the background, educational background, economic background?
Obviously we know an awful lot about Judge Hannah Dugan.
She has been elected to the bench here, and we know about her presence in the Milwaukee community, but all of that, including things off the bench, are also included in that report.
The report also
so significantly includes a huge amount on the specific events conduct here, discusses what we have been talking about here and what the media has been focusing on as well, the evidence in support of the count of conviction, the evidence in support of the count in which the jury found a not guilty verdict.
All of that gets put into the pre-sentence report, other things relevant to the offense conduct, all leading up to what?
Leading up to a recommendation, a recommendation from
this office that puts together this pre-sense report about how the judge should dispose of the case.
And by that, I mean, how should the judge proceed to sentencing?
What kind of sentence should he impose upon Judge Dugan based upon the count of conviction?
And there, they are in addition to the narrative description of all of these things, who she is, what she did.
who she, what animates her in her present life, what has been her background, all of those things relevant to history.
The other significant thing that the pre-sentence writer does is makes a recommendation based upon something called the sentencing guidelines.
We've talked about those in other settings way back in the mid to late 1980s.
There was a huge concern that federal judges around the country were not being consistent.
And so by that, I mean, if you're charged and convicted of bank
in Boston, you may get a very different sentence from the same kind of conduct in Chicago, maybe different in San Diego, same kind of thing, different crimes, different crimes committed in different venues, but partaking of the same facts and Congress concerned that it seemed to them, whether it was accurate or not, that judges were imposing across the country different kinds of sentences.
And because of that, they said, we need to establish more consistency.
So someone who engages in a particular offense conduct, some events in Boston, should get roughly the same sentence if they did the same thing in Milwaukee or in St.
Louis or New Orleans or some other place.
And so they established these guidelines, initially mandatory for judges to take a look at.
What do the guidelines do?
Well, again, they assign numbers and there's math involved, there's arithmetic involved in determining the nature of the offense conduct, how serious it is.
If you're engaged in highly violent criminal activity, you'll get higher numbers.
If it's less violent, number of victims can be relevant in terms of assigning numbers and coming up with an overall number that describes the severity, the seriousness of the offense conduct.
And then you also look to who this defendant is.
And likewise, assigning numbers to that person based upon things like intent and motive, the extent to which they've accepted responsibility.
That's a big one.
all kinds of considerations are mixed into this pot and in the end it's almost
like a tax table, when you look at who this person is, numbers of categories, and what this person did also, numbers inside categories, you reach a box inside this sentencing guideline regime, and it tells you, it tells the judges what the range of possibility is.
And so, for example, in this case, almost certainly because of her very, very low, very low score in terms of who she is,
what she has done, and also a reasonably low number in terms of what she did here, highly likely that she will fall into a box at the lowest level of the sentencing guidelines, maybe as low as zero months to six months in an incarcerated setting.
And that gives the judge a huge amount of latitude inside that range to impose, yes, some jail time, but also to impose, for example, supervised release, which we might think of as probation without any jail time.
And that's
what the judge will be looking at when he gets this pre-sentence report.
The counsel for the defense and also for the prosecution, they get the same report, they get a chance.
in a sentencing proceeding to argue with the judge about whether the pre-sentence writer got it right in coming to the conclusion that he or she did in assessing these factors, assigning these numbers, coming to a final category about what the range of offense conduct is and how this particular case should be disposed of.
And then the judge in that sentencing proceeding lets everybody talk appropriately, a part of our process.
Talk about the sentencing guidelines, but also talk
about the reasons why a particular sentence presumably within that range should be imposed.
Prosecution counsel have the opportunity to describe once again what happened in the trial and explain presumably why they believe a particular sentence is appropriate.
Defense counsel has the same opportunity.
to examine what has been written and also to explain to the judge why, why a particular sentence should be imposed.
Now there's another big wrinkle in all of this and that is that the sentencing guidelines initially, initially were mandatory as a result of a Supreme Court case coming out of Wisconsin many years ago.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory nature of them was unconstitutional and so for that reason the Supreme Court said they are advisory only.
And that will also give rise to a lot of the arguments from the defense counsel, from prosecution counsel, about what the judge should do.
Significantly, the defendant, in this case Hannah Dugan, has the absolute right, if she chooses to do so, to engage the judge in discussion.
on her own.
She can speak to the judge about her own position and say to the judge those things that she thinks he should know about in connection with the decision to impose a sentence upon her.
That's called the right of allocation.
The right of allocation afforded every defendant in criminal proceedings in America.
And again, it affords the defendant the right to speak directly to the judge.
and tell the judge all sorts of things.
Whatever the defendant wants to say about background, about history, certainly about the facts of this case, presumably the reasons why a lenient or lower sentence should be imposed.
It can be an admission of guilt.
If the defendant chooses to do so, it can be a statement of defiance that I was improperly and inaccurately wrongly convicted.
It is an opportunity for the defendant to speak directly to the person who's going to impose sentencing.
That's the right of allocution and all of that happens in a sentencing proceeding after the motions are resolved.
after the pre-sense report is written and as the judge calls everybody back in for that all quickly given the history on this sometime in the summer of 2026 and significantly it's only after that proceeding that the judge makes his decision about the sentence to be imposed that he enters the judgment she has been convicted of a felony but a judgment the final action of the district court has not been entered what he does is he enters that
It is quite literally a piece of paper.
He will sign it.
It sets forth some findings of his under the sentencing guidelines.
It sets forth reasons why he is sentencing the defendant as he does, and also commits to paper for the purposes of an appeal, all the relevant things related to the statute of conviction, the circumstances under which the sentence was imposed, and specifically what that sentence is.
That's the final document.
by the district court in the disposition of this case.
It is called the judgment.
It is all important.
Why?
Because it is the predicate.
It's the open door, if you will, for the next part of this, which is the appeal.
Presumably, presumably again, if the judge does not grant the motions to dismiss, proceeds to proceed to the sentencing status and imposes sentence, then the defendant does have the right, if she, in other cases, he chooses to, to go to the United States Court of Appeals, higher court in the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.
We come back, I'll tell you about the offense next on amicus.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this, the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast.
As always, encouraging your calls, your comments, your questions, text them to us.
Call in 855-752-4842.
We've got more of those coming in, and I will address some of those in this, the second hour of our broadcast.
We are talking about process.
What is the criminal constitutional process that goes forward after an individual or a corporation has been convicted in federal court, parallel circumstances in state court as well?
Well, after the judge has entered this judgment, after he has imposed a sentence based upon all of these proceedings that we've talked about that we are about to engage in, that the parties are about to engage in, the judge is about to engage in, and especially the defendant is about to engage in in the weeks
months just ahead.
At some point, Judge Edelman will enter a judgment of conviction.
And that is the final thing that he will do in this case, most likely sometime well into 2026.
And then the defense has a right to appeal that judgment.
Obviously on the singular count of conviction to where to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit one of about 13 14 different appellate courts and all of them ultimately as you know feed into where into the United States Supreme Court This is the this is the next highest court in our area, Wisconsin and Illinois and Indiana We are part of the 7th Circuit and so the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals takes appeals both criminal and civil from any of the district
district courts, including the district courts in Indiana and Illinois, and the two in the state of Wisconsin, eastern and western, and they will then take up this issue.
Now, what is it that they take up?
Sometimes people think that when you go up on appeal that you get a second trial at the appellate level, and that is not the case.
What you get instead is a chance to challenge, to present to the, in this case, a three judge panel of appeals court judges they meet in Chicago in the loop.
and in the Dirksen building, for those of you who have been in that federal building in downtown Chicago, they will convene and they will determine if anything about this trial warrants some remedial intervention by them.
And what do I mean by that?
I mean that defense counsel then has the opportunity once before them to identify any objections that they made along the way to things that happened at the lower court.
We know already that Judge Edelman early on dismissed, denied some motions to dismiss the case based upon the 10th amendment, based upon immunities.
That can be the source of an appeal.
You can argue to the appeals court that judge was wrong in dismissing those
cases.
high suspicion that the good defense counsel here will raise those issues and say the judge should have dismissed the case outright because he failed to do so.
The judgment that he ultimately entered is flawed, reverse that, send it back and send it back probably for dismissal.
That's one option.
Then defense counsel can look at all kinds of other things that happened in the pre-trial period, including things related to preparations for the trial,
the judge made, jury selection is a huge one.
We know we had this interesting situation involving jurors being summoned back into chambers.
That in itself could be the source of appeal, of appellate issues to the Seventh Circuit, maintaining that because of the way the judge did this, that somehow the jury was tainted by that, that the defendant could not get a proper trial.
by a jury of her peers because the judge below aired would be the argument.
Therefore...
Your honor before the appeals court here what you've got to do is again reverse this judgment and send it back in that case Probably for a new trial and then you look to the trial itself all the evidentiary rulings that the judge engaged in a lot of them are minor and significant the judge was in fact Making decisions about evidentiary presentations, but you can appeal on those decisions that he also made if indeed he chose to decide a particular evidentiary
emotion.
contrary to the position taken by the defendant.
Those can be the source of an appeal as well.
And then anything related to jury deliberation, we saw that the jury had a number of questions coming in and out related to the policies of ICE, related to what the judge needed to know about the identity of the person who was involved in this proceeding.
They asked for some specific questions.
In the end, the judge gave a ruling, gave them
a supplemental instruction that the government wanted, that the defense opposed.
That kind of thing where the defendant effectively lost in her argument before the judge, that can also be the source of an argument to the court of appeals, that the lower court's decision, the ultimate judgment, is flawed and therefore needs to be overturned.
Everything related to sentencing, including the development of these sentencing guidelines recommendations, things happening at the sentencing hearing,
All of those start to finish can also be the focus of appellate issues, presumably listed in great detail by defense counsel in their briefs.
Courts of Appeals, including the 7th Circuit, takes those up.
Lots of paper being written back and forth.
Conducts oral argument.
in the Dirksen building there in the loop in Chicago.
The attorneys for the prosecution and for the defense have the opportunity to argue their case orally based upon the filing of the memorandums and the briefs back and forth.
And then it's up to the appeals court.
The three judge panel makes a decision on all of these issues.
separately and together and determines whether or not the case needs to be sent back for a new trial, whether it should be sent back for dismissal, or whether the judgment as entered by Judge Edelman in all of its aspects, including all of these things related to the decisions he made about defense motions and positions, all of that was right.
And good, and if they do that, they will affirm the judgment and the case is then over.
Absent one more possibility.
Can you take this up to the United States Supreme Court?
Yes.
You can appeal for what's called, on what's called a, a writ of certiorari.
We've talked a lot about that.
Why?
Because once again, the seventh circuit is a federal appellate court and you can seek review by the United States Supreme Court.
As we know it, as we'll talk in just a few moments, the United States Supreme Court does not have
to take cases.
They say yes to many.
They deny many others.
It is not the case.
Those need to be taken up.
But that's the process, and it is long and is important to embrace because of the embracing of the rule of law.
General, when we come back, a couple more comments, and then we'll talk more about the Supreme Court here on Amicus, the Law Review.
My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amica Solaroview on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Here in the studio with me is my outstanding producer, Greg.
And together we're taking your phone calls at 855-752-4842.
Call in, text in with your questions, comments.
It is a lot, as I often say, especially as we focus on the procedure that now comes in the wake of the conviction this past week of Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin talking about now what happens at the appellate level do not get a new trial but do get a review of those issues that happened before the trial court judge that again in the view of the defense were problematic were done wrongly improperly asking the appeals court to identify some problems with those and therefore either return the case for a new trial dismiss it outright that's what would happen after.
only after Judge Edelman enters the judgment in this matter.
And yes, anticipating some questions about this, given the length of time that all of this takes, it is entirely likely that the final disposition by the 7th Circuit could happen late in 2026, arguably, depending upon how long they take to resolve any appeal, could even go into 2027.
And then, as I indicated,
There is an option for seeking a pellet review by the United States Supreme Court.
That is not compulsory.
The Supreme Court does not have to take a case, but they could.
And so that is the process.
That is the overall focus of this.
There is, as defense counsel has said, Steve Buscupic, there is a lot more to do here.
There's a lot more to be undertaken here in the defense of the case.
He has said on a couple of occasions, since the return of the jury verdict,
but this case is far from over.
Nonetheless, the conviction, the return of this jury verdict.
by a jury assembled there in the federal courthouse.
The third floor, courtroom 390 of the federal court, a significant matter for all of us, including especially the defendant, Hannah Dugan.
And that leads to some final commentary also predicated upon a great note that Jean sent in.
She was asking about the circumstances under which judges going forward can keep the peace, even those in the past.
can keep the peace inside their courtrooms.
A couple of thoughts on that, and then some larger thoughts, Gene, based upon your very good inquiry and dropping that thought into our conversation.
We know.
based upon the testimony of the chief judge that this process, this set of protocols, is still in process there at the circuit court, and presumably it will establish with some clarity.
Not just because of this trial, but especially in the wake of this trial, some clearer understandings about how this is done.
Under what circumstances can federal agents, if any, come into a courtroom and arrest someone in the courtroom itself?
chances are the final order here, the final directive, will limit that dramatically if permitted at all.
On the other hand, outside the courtroom, in the public areas, in the foyers of a courthouse, there where things are more public, where you're not disrupting the proceedings, the gene, presumably you're talking about, more latitude and options for doing this, all sorts of protocols and processes,
being contemplated by the Chief Judge as he and certainly his other deputies, and the judges generally put together this system that will provide some direction for what happens next.
Again, a lot of lessons presumably learned from this trial, but also, also anticipated even before this happened, this policy is still underway whenever the judge formally issues it, it will also be.
a source of great attention appropriately because it relates to all of these proceedings.
The upshot, as we often talk about, is balance.
You cannot disrupt a circuit court proceeding, a federal court proceeding, that in itself is problematic.
And yet, law enforcement has got the right to execute on its arrest warrants properly issued.
The question is, how do you accommodate
both of those equally legitimate things going on in our criminal justice system, believing and embracing, once again, two things at the same time.
The sanctity of the courtroom itself and the importance of the proceedings that happen in that venue, and then also the public nature of areas beyond the courtroom where law enforcement can and should have the opportunity to do what it is obliged to do under our system.
Jean, I appreciate the comment.
much and also leads to some final comments generally about this trial.
I began by speaking a lot about the human tragedy of all criminal trials, the absolute necessity of them, this notion that we embrace a system that, yes, it's imperfect and we can embrace it even while we can criticize the results of it, First Amendment applications of that, all the kinds of things that we've been talking about this morning, including our callers, Mark,
and Jack as well.
That conversation necessarily continues as Mark indicated, hopefully with some sense of consistency even as those discussions go forward.
There's another portion of this that also occurs to me as I review and think about this particular case ever, ever on my mind, ever on the mind of defense counsel and especially on prosecution counsel as you think about the huge
discretion, another D word.
We talked about deterrence before, another word called discretion.
And that is a huge amount of discretion vested in, yes, a district attorney, assistant district attorneys, municipal attorneys, assistant city attorneys, and United States attorneys and assistant US attorneys.
All of those people have a huge amount of discretion to charge and to not charge cases that are presented in front of them.
It is
a simple statement of fact that on a regular basis.
Prosecuting attorneys necessarily make the decision not to charge cases and that's premised in some places upon the some instances upon the conclusion the crime hasn't been committed there's no proof of a crime and so those cases are closed and the public appropriately never hears about them there are other instances where there may have been a crime committed but it suffers from adequate proof material relevant proof can't prove the crime and there again a decision made not to
And then there's yet another category.
If there are mechanisms, if there are ways in which the underlying issue, the deterrence that we talked about before can be accomplished, that too can be mixed into the overall batter of this criminal justice system.
That should also be in the docket and on the list of options for
prosecutors.
Here, here, one of the debates that will go on is about the propriety of that initial decision even to prosecute.
And one of the things that prosecutors, including those in the federal system, always have is even if the evidence is there, even if there's a reason to do it, if the crime may have been committed, what is the ultimate end of justice?
What is the deterrent purpose that we're trying to accomplish?
And are there some other remedies, other mechanisms, other procedures that can be
followed to achieve the same result.
Here the question would be for debate, not to be decided by me, but perhaps by the public generally, as we think about this case going forward, was there another remedy?
Was there a possibility of not only engaging, for example, the chief judge who ended up testifying here to establish
between federal and state systems, the clear protocol that he's now working on to say, you know what, we've had some incidents or an incident here.
We need to resolve this to ensure that there's clarity.
We may or may not prosecute, but we need to ensure going forward that the results of our system deterrence, again, to ensure that everybody understands what the law is, to ensure that bad things don't happen again, that secondary component of the deterrence purpose is met.
There are other remedies here.
There are other remedies in virtually all cases that also could have been pursued, including engagement by the prosecutors with the state judicial officers and others, including the district attorney about ways in which this very thorny and very difficult issue can be balanced and resolved.
I look to this case and I see an awful lot of discretion being exercised ultimately in favor of prosecution.
That too should be a part of our common understanding about the prerogatives that prosecutors have in making decisions about whether to charge or not.
And then, and then I also embrace, as we all do, the importance of the jury system generally.
The importance of calling together in this incredible, incredible
mechanism.
After all of the investigation is completed, after pre-trial motions, after arguments made before them, we vest in a group of 12 people responsibility to make the ultimate decision.
That, of course, in the federal system, in the state system, that set forth where in our Constitution.
And regardless of how you think about this case, regardless about how you engage in debate on it, and yes indeed, once again, debate is a good thing.
Lots and
lots of considerations here.
We need to exalt and embrace consistently here and in other cases, the notion that our system, while imperfect, our jury system, while it may in fact result in a decision with which you do not agree, is the one that we have embraced.
It is in our Constitution, 236 years old, and it is what we saw.
in effect this past week in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
An awful lot, an awful lot to consider.
We will consider those issues certainly in the days and weeks ahead as the debate about all of this continues here on this broadcast and other broadcasts of civic media and in conversations apart from our discussions on the air.
I appreciate so very much the contributions that you make to the
this broadcast to that end.
It is through discussion that we get a clearer understanding, not only of the ways in which our world works, the ways in which the justice system works, but the ways in which we can also, even inside our understandings of that, come to different decisions about what we might have done, about different courses of action, and then understanding the process and the predicates for it,
having a more informed population that animates all of that discussion.
Part of this, of course, is understanding what courts do and do not do.
I promised at the outset that we would talk a bit also in this
this application of our rule of law discussion about the Supreme Court.
And indeed, the Supreme Court once again acted this past week, not engaging in any oral arguments.
They are next scheduled to resume in about three weeks from Monday.
In the middle of January, they resume the docket, and they will have on their docket, again, now, about 50 cases altogether, 50, five zero cases in which they have decided
to review the appellate decisions of lower courts, can be a Supreme Court of a state of a state, or can also be, as we talked, an appellate court, like the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
like the Ninth Circuit, like the Federal Circuit, all of those we have talked about.
This past week, the Supreme Court, even though they're not on the bench hearing oral arguments, they did issue a number of decisions that animate and define and populate their docket in this very term.
Again, 50 cases up to this point, and that includes their decision to hear an appeal of a black death row inmate over racial bias in, yes,
jury makeup, the jury selection in Mississippi.
The Supreme Court just early this past week, at the same time that this very important trial going ahead in the Wisconsin Circuit Court in Milwaukee was going ahead, the federal Supreme Court decided to grant certiorari in a case involving a jury selection process in which the prosecutor struck a number of potential jury
those are called peremptory strikes and resulted arguably in the creation, the establishment, the assembly of a jury that was not truly representative of the defendant.
The defendant here black.
and resulting in a jury that did not have sufficient amount of black representation.
When we come back, I'll tell you about why the Supreme Court decided to take on that case, now a part of its docket, and made decisions about three other matters just this past week.
All that coming up next here on Amicus, a lot of you.
you
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the final segment of our two hour program this weekend, talking as we so often do about the United States Supreme Court, decisions they made to add to their docket, decisions they made to eliminate, to not proceed on certain cases.
This is a big one, especially in the wake of a week in which we've talked a lot about jury selection and the ways in which jurors are placed on a jury.
We know from a case way back in 1987,
case called Batson, B-A-T-S-O-N versus Kentucky, that the use of peremptory challenges, that's basically challenges for any reason that to remove potential jurors from a jury pool based on their race.
To make a decision to get rid of somebody in the jury pool based on their race violates the U.S.
Constitution.
It's called a Batson challenge.
And in fact, the matter is once again before the Supreme Court, the case involving Terry Pitchford, who is challenging decisions made by the prosecutor in the case against him to strike four black jurors, leaving only one black person on the final jury.
a group and maintaining that that is in violation of the Constitution and maintaining that for that reason the Supreme Court should overturn what the lower court has done.
The lower courts found that there was nothing wrong with that.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some lower courts finding for all sorts of reasons that there was not a Batson violation here, but the Supreme Court now taking this up, case involving Terry Pitchford about whether or not in the course of the selection process for his trial.
He is on death row.
He is on death row.
During the course of his process, was there a violation of the Constitution in precluding him from getting a jury of his peers based upon race?
Other things the Supreme Court did just this past week, declines to hear another Texas case, this one having to do with a book ban, and a case focusing a lot on free speech groups, a 20-22 lawsuit by a group of residents in a rural
County there in Texas, challenging the removal from the public library of about a dozen books dealing with sex, race, and gender themes.
And the question there is whether or not that is appropriate.
What did the lower courts do?
Did they act properly on this ban?
Supreme Court's saying we're not gonna touch this.
They decided not to grant that issue, to review that issue on the Texas Book Ban and sent that back.
They also
to halt a free speech lawsuit brought by immigration judges, immigration judges, federal judges suing over a Biden-era policy that prohibited them, these federal immigration judges, from making statements in their personal capacities about immigration
or the agency that employs them.
That was a Biden-era rule there.
They're going ahead and they're challenging that again on First Amendment grounds, maintaining that it violates their constitutional right to speak, including restrictions on public speaking engagements.
The Supreme Court this past week, when the administration sought an emergency stay of what the lower court is doing here, Supreme Court decided.
decided not to interfere, decided not to stop that free speech lawsuit.
from the immigration judges from going ahead in the lower courts.
And finally, another significant action apropos of much we've talked about in the past related to the death penalty, including another major death penalty case on its stock at Supreme Court Justice Week, rejecting a last moment appeal aimed at preventing the scheduled execution of an individual named Frank Walls.
And that, again, a part of its jurisprudence, deciding not
to prevent.
the state of florida from going ahead to execute him on death row all that coming out of the supreme court making decisions about what to do what not to do even as they anticipate again the resumption of their oral arguments coming up in january that includes oral arguments on transgender women in women's sports that also includes this very interesting equally interesting case involving whether or not the president has the capacity
the constitutional power to terminate somebody on the Federal Reserve.
You may recall in the past, we've talked about this major case involving the Federal Trade Commission.
Whether or not he can terminate someone on that board, now we're looking at the Federal Reserve.
And you know about Lisa Cook, who's one of the commissioners there, one of the board members of the Federal Reserve.
Can he terminate her?
That's coming up in the oral arguments in January.
Along the way, our
federal courts again as we witnessed with Judge Edelman just this past week also very busy.
It is significant in the category of rule of law snapshots to note that a judge named Patty Saras essay RIS of the District of Massachusetts struck down.
President Trump's halt, his suspension on approvals of wind power projects on federal lands and waters, that deals a very significant legal setback to this administration when it is campaign involving wind farms saying that the Trump administration's halt on those projects is illegal and ordering a stop.
Stopped to permits for all wind farms and federal lands and waters that can't happen suspending what the president has done the judge calling that decision by the president Capricious when it comes to wind energy and then also right at home here in Wisconsin We also have of course this decision by a Wisconsin circuit court judge his name is John Highland and Ruling early this week that there is sufficient evidence for two men to face trial on charges that they
illegally tried to keep President Trump in power after the 2020 election.
We know about this case.
It involves James Trupas.
He's a lawyer and a former judge accused of being the architect of this fake electorate's plan.
Mike Roman, he's a top staff member in the 2020 campaign.
There's a third defendant, Kenneth Chesbro, another lawyer also involved in this.
That will be the subject of future proceedings, but for now.
A Wisconsin circuit court judge in Dane County, Madison, permitting the Attorney General's office, the state of Wisconsin, to proceed on those charges against those two defendants in that.
law enforcement action being prosecuted by the state of Wisconsin.
It is a lot, as I often say.
It is important to understand the details.
It is sometimes important also to get a general sense about what judges are doing in Wisconsin, in America, across the board, in our areas of rule of law.
I so appreciate your contributions, your attention, your interest in all of this discussion.
We'll look forward to more of that, including next week's Amicus, a lot of you.
Have a good one.
Weekend,
everybody.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.