A Troubling Case Against a Wisconsin Judge

On May 15, 2025, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty to federal charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. Prosecutors allege that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man reportedly in the country without legal status, leave the courthouse through a nonpublic exit to avoid arrest by ICE agents. The battery case against Flores-Ruiz had just been dismissed. Now, based on minimal evidence—including vague security footage and a court deputy’s account—Judge Dugan faces a criminal trial.

Her legal team has moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that she acted within her lawful discretion as a judge and is immune from prosecution. The case raises significant concerns about federal overreach and the politicization of immigration enforcement. It is virtually unprecedented to prosecute a sitting judge for a split-second decision made within the courthouse, and many see this as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

Beyond the courtroom, this indictment sends a chilling message: that federal prosecutors may criminally charge state judges whose actions—however legal—conflict with ICE’s objectives. Whether or not one agrees with Judge Dugan’s conduct, the prosecution threatens to erode judicial independence and weaponize immigration enforcement in ways that undermine basic principles of due process and state sovereignty.

Source: AP News – Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty to Helping Man Evade ICE

SCOTUS Block Trump’s Attempt to Deport Venezuelans Under Wartime Law

In a major ruling this week, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from using a centuries-old wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants without proper legal procedures. The administration claimed national security concerns, but many targeted individuals had no criminal records—and at least one man was deported despite a court order protecting him.

As a criminal defense attorney, I see this decision as a powerful reminder: due process isn’t optional. Whether you’re facing criminal charges or immigration proceedings, the government must follow the law. No one should be detained or deported without a fair opportunity to respond.

This case underscores why legal representation matters—and why courts still serve as an essential check when the government overreaches.

Source: Reuters - U.S. Supreme Court maintains block on Trump deportations under wartime law

How the Donnell Decision Could Overturn Gun Possession Convictions in Massachusetts

Massachusetts SJC Strikes Down “May Issue” Firearms Law for Out-of-State Residents: What It Means for Defendants

In the wake of a major decision issued this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has struck down the Commonwealth’s former “may issue” gun licensing scheme for out-of-state residents. In Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), the Court ruled that the discretionary license process violated the Second Amendment. For anyone charged under M.G.L. c. 269 §§ 10(a) or 10(h), this ruling may open the door to significant relief—even vacating a conviction entirely.

What Was the Issue?

Massachusetts previously required out-of-state residents to obtain a temporary license to carry a firearm through a process that gave wide discretion to the licensing authority. Under the now-invalidated law, the colonel of the State Police could deny applications “based on such terms and conditions as [they] may deem proper.” The SJC found this discretionary scheme unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical traditions.

Who Is Affected?

If you’re an out-of-state resident who was charged under §10(a) or §10(h) after Bruen (June 23, 2022) but before the legislature changed the law (August 10, 2022), you are in the same position as Mr. Donnell and are entitled to dismissal of those charges.

Even if you were charged before Bruen, you might still be eligible for relief—as long as your conviction wasn’t final when Bruen came down. This primarily applies to defendants convicted after trial who had an appeal pending as of June 2022.

What About Massachusetts Residents?

The Donnell decision only addressed out-of-state residents, but its reasoning could soon extend to in-state residents who were subject to similar discretionary licensing schemes. The SJC is currently reviewing that issue in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, with a decision expected later this year. Depending on that outcome, in-state defendants convicted under §10(a) between 2015 and 2022 may also have grounds for relief.

What Should You Do?

If you’re serving a sentence for unlawful firearm possession as an out-of-state resident—or were convicted but haven’t exhausted your appeals—now is the time to act. The Donnell decision could be the key to dismissing your case or overturning your conviction.

If you think your case might be affected, I’m happy to review your record and help determine whether a motion to vacate or dismiss is appropriate.

Breath Test Results Thrown Out in Massachusetts: What the Hallinan Decision Means for OUI Defendants

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a major ruling in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), reaffirming what defense attorneys have known for years: the state’s breathalyzer program was a mess, and the evidence it produced can’t be trusted. The decision formally excludes breath test results from a critical time period—June 2011 through April 18, 2019—unless the Commonwealth can prove their reliability in each individual case.

As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve seen firsthand how breath test results are often treated as ironclad evidence in OUI prosecutions. The Hallinan decision is a long-overdue recognition that science without transparency isn’t justice—it’s just conviction by shortcut.

What Did the SJC Decide?

The Court upheld a lower court finding that the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) failed in its obligations to ensure the scientific integrity of breathalyzer machines. Specifically, OAT withheld evidence, failed to disclose critical information about calibration practices, and essentially misled courts and defense counsel for years. The SJC ruled that breath test results from the Alcotest 9510 device during the affected time period are presumptively inadmissible unless the state can meet a high burden to prove reliability.

Who Is Affected?

If you’re facing an OUI charge based on a breath test between June 2011 and April 18, 2019, your defense just gained significant leverage. Prosecutors may now be forced to drop breathalyzer evidence entirely—or prove in court why your specific test should be admissible.

For people who already pled guilty or were convicted during that period, Hallinan could also open the door to post-conviction relief. If your case depended on a breath test, it’s worth revisiting whether that conviction was built on unreliable evidence.

Why It Matters

Hallinan isn’t just about faulty machines—it’s about accountability. When the government presents scientific evidence in court, it has a duty to ensure that evidence is accurate, fair, and disclosed fully to the defense. The misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing violated that duty, and the SJC’s decision reflects the seriousness of that breach.

This case should serve as a warning: justice can’t be automated. Breath tests may seem like simple numbers, but behind those numbers is a system that depends on honesty, oversight, and due process. When that system fails, people’s lives are unfairly upended. I’m glad the SJC stepped in—and I’ll continue fighting to make sure my clients are judged by facts, not faulty machines.

What Is Discovery in a Criminal Case in Massachusetts?

In every Massachusetts criminal case, the defense has the right to receive discovery—copies of the evidence the prosecution plans to use.

This can include:
- Police reports 
- Surveillance video 
- 911 calls 
- Witness statements 
- Forensic results like fingerprints or DNA

Discovery is governed by Rule 14 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure. In most cases, the Commonwealth must turn over basic materials within a set timeline after arraignment. But not everything is automatic—sometimes you have to file a motion to get specific items.

I often see discovery come in late, incomplete, or missing key records. That’s why I push aggressively for full disclosure. If the government delays or fails to provide evidence, we can file a motion to compel—and in some cases, exclude the evidence altogether.

Understanding what’s in discovery (and what’s not) can make or break a defense. I don’t just wait for the file—I go after what matters.