MILWAUKEE, Wis. — I traveled to the Milwaukee Federal Building to observe opening statements and the first witness testimony in the federal criminal case against Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, a rare prosecution that accuses a sitting judge of obstructing federal law enforcement during a courthouse arrest operation.

Paid Advertisement

The case is being presided over by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman. Before testimony began, Adelman informed the courtroom that one juror had called in sick, leaving a 13-person jury with only one alternate. Adelman explained that if two jurors were unable to complete their duties, the trial would end in a mistrial and would need to be retried. He lightly urged jurors to stay healthy as the case moves forward.

Paid Advertisement

The government’s opening statement was delivered by Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Alexander, chief of the criminal division, while longtime defense attorney Steven Biskupic presented opening remarks on behalf of Dugan.

Paid Advertisement

Prosecutors immediately framed the case as a straightforward, evidence-driven prosecution supported by extensive video, audio, photographs, diagrams, and courthouse surveillance footage. Alexander told jurors that arrests inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse are routine and intentionally conducted in public hallways because defendants have already passed through security and are unarmed, making the environment safer for law enforcement, court staff, and the public.

Paid Advertisement

According to the government, federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Customs and Border Protection arrived at the courthouse on April 18 with an administrative immigration warrant for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who was scheduled to appear in Dugan’s courtroom on state battery charges. Prosecutors said agents identified themselves to security, coordinated with court staff, and agreed to wait until Flores-Ruiz’s hearing concluded before making the arrest.

Paid Advertisement

Alexander told jurors that everything changed once Dugan learned ICE agents were present in the hallway. Prosecutors allege that Dugan, visibly upset, confronted federal agents in the public corridor while wearing her judicial robe, questioned their authority, and directed them away from the hallway and toward the chief judge’s office. The government contends that this move fractured the arrest team and created an opportunity for Flores-Ruiz to be moved out of the courtroom through a restricted jury door rather than the public exit.

Paid Advertisement

Prosecutors allege Dugan then rushed Flores-Ruiz’s case, bypassed the normal calling of cases, and personally escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a nonpublic hallway typically reserved for jurors, judges, and in-custody defendants. Flores-Ruiz ultimately fled the building and was arrested only after a foot chase outside in the rain — an arrest the government says should have occurred safely and uneventfully inside the courthouse.

Paid Advertisement

“This was not business as usual,” Alexander emphasized, repeatedly urging jurors to consider the totality of Dugan’s actions rather than viewing them as isolated decisions. Prosecutors argue her conduct was intentional, coordinated, and designed to prevent Flores-Ruiz’s arrest, thereby obstructing a federal proceeding.

Defense attorney Steven Biskupic struck a markedly different tone in his opening. He stressed repeatedly that Dugan is presumed innocent and that the burden of proof rests entirely with the government. He reminded jurors that Dugan does not have to testify or present any evidence at all, underscoring that prosecutors must prove every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

Biskupic framed the incident as a moment of confusion and institutional tension following recent changes in federal immigration enforcement practices. He argued that ICE courthouse arrests were unusual, poorly communicated, and alarming to county judges at the time. He downplayed the significance of the exit route Flores-Ruiz took, noting the short physical distance involved and suggesting federal agents were positioned nearby regardless.

Notably, Biskupic’s comments strongly suggested that Dugan is unlikely to take the witness stand. By repeatedly emphasizing that jurors must not expect or require her testimony, the defense signaled early that it intends to rely on cross-examination and reasonable doubt rather than a firsthand explanation from the defendant herself.

After opening statements, prosecutors called their first witness, FBI Special Agent Erin Lucker. Lucker provided detailed foundational testimony laying out the physical layout of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, including floor plans, hallway configurations, courtroom entrances, jury doors, stairwells, and elevator banks. Using maps, diagrams, photographs, and surveillance footage, Lucker walked jurors step by step through how federal agents positioned themselves and how events unfolded that morning.

Lucker explained where agents were seated in the public hallway, how they coordinated with court personnel, and how the restricted jury exit differs from public courtroom exits. Her testimony focused heavily on orientation and sequence, helping jurors visualize the courthouse environment and understand why prosecutors argue Dugan’s actions materially altered the arrest plan.

Through Lucker’s testimony, prosecutors reinforced their central theme: that the arrest was supposed to be routine and safe, but became chaotic only after judicial intervention. The government used her testimony to anchor later evidence jurors are expected to see, including additional video footage and audio recordings from inside and outside the courtroom.

Based on the first day of testimony, the prosecution is building a case that relies far more on objective evidence than disputed recollections. Video, audio, and documented timelines appear to be the backbone of the government’s strategy.

I will not be covering the remainder of this trial. My purpose in attending was to observe a federal criminal proceeding firsthand and report on how the case began. From opening statements and the testimony of FBI Special Agent Erin Lucker alone, prosecutors are clearly positioning this as an evidence-heavy and methodical case — while the defense appears to be preparing jurors for the possibility that Judge Hannah Dugan will never personally explain her actions from the witness stand.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.