WASHINGTON - TelAve -- Perhaps it's no surprise that a jury convicted Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan of the felony of obstructing federal agents seeking to make an immigration arrest outside her courtroom.

After all, with her fellow judges testifying for the prosecution, and clear video recordings documenting her crime, a conviction seemed like a slam dunk except for one tiny hope - juror nullification - says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

After all, the district reportedly was liberal, and many people oppose widespread efforts to deport illegal aliens, object to the very aggressive if not illegal tactics often used, or simply feel that such arrests should not take place in a courthouse.

If only one juror had decided to exercise his constitutional right to refuse to vote for conviction because he thought the prosecution was unfair under the circumstances, to send a message, or for any similar reason, the result would have been juror nullification requiring a mistrial.  Some experts suggested this possibility.

More on TelAve News

• Price Improvement on Luxurious Lāna'i Townhome with Stunning Ocean Views
• Nextvisit Co-Founder Ryan Yannelli Identifies Six Critical Factors for Behavioral Health Providers Evaluating AI Scribes in 2026
• CredHub and Real Property Management Join Forces to Empower Franchise Owners with Rental Payment Credit Reporting Solutions
• Leimert Park Announces Weeklong Kwanzaa Festival & Kwanzaa Parade Celebrating Black History, Culture, and Community
• Renowned Alternative Medicine Specialist Dr. Sebi and His African Bio Mineral Balance Therapy Are the Focus of New Book

Indeed, Banzhaf notes that the concept of jurors flaunting the law, generally known as "jury nullification" or "juror nullification" when exercised by members of a trial jury, is now spreading to jurors on a grand jury who are unwilling to return indictments which they disapprove of for a variety of reasons, says the activist law professor.

In addition to the widely reported situations in which two separate grand juriesrejected charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James. and another where a grand jury refused to indict for felony assault a man who hit a Customs and Border Protection agent in the chest with a sandwich, there are lesser known cases where grand juries are refusing to indict people who allegedly interfered with aggressive immigration tactics, says Banzhaf.

Since Judge Dugan is accused of trying to prevent what she apparently believed was an unwarranted if not illegal immigration enforcement tactic, there may have been hope that one or more jurors in her case would refuse to convict because they oppose widespread efforts to deport illegal aliens, object to the very aggressive if not illegal tactics often used, or simply feel that arrests should not take place in a courthouse.

More on TelAve News

• Psychiatric Drug Damage Ignored for Decades; CCHR Demands Federal Action
• Why Millions Are Losing Sexual Sensation, And Why It's Not Age, Hormones, or Desire
• Justin Jeansonne An Emerging Country Singer-Songwriter Music Fans Have Been Waiting For…a True Maverick
• Russellville Huntington Learning Center Expands Access to Literacy Support; Approved Provider Under Arkansas Department of Education
• UK Financial Ltd Launches U.S. Operations Following Delaware Approval

But this didn't happen here, notes the law professor who had correctly predicted jury nullification in a number of high profile cases, and has suggested that either jury nullification or juror nullification is possible in the case of Luigi Mangione . .

In any event, a felony conviction of a judge may discourage some of the more extreme efforts by others to interfere with immigration enforcement activities, an embolden prosecutors to being more far-reaching criminal changes; e.g. against the operator of the ICEBlock app.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf