The federal government has started arresting state trial judges who are not cooperating in the federal government’s roundup of alleged undocumented immigrants in state courthouses.
Is this a message from federal agents that no one is above the law or are these actions an assault on the judiciary? That is the question currently being debated by legal scholars.
Recently, Wisconsin state trial judge, Hannah Dugan, was arrested by the FBI for obstruction or impeding federal immigration officers and concealing an individual to prohibit his arrest.
The incident arose out of a situation where undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores Ruiz was appearing before Judge Dugan for assault charges when six federal agents showed up to arrest him.
It is alleged that Judge Dugan deterred the federal agents and then provided Ruiz and his attorney a private way to leave her courtroom to avoid the federal agents.
Ruiz was apprehended shortly thereafter.
The next day, Judge Dugan was confronted in the court’s parking lot and arrested by federal agents.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the arrest sends a strong message to other judges who do not help the Trump Administration.
FBI Director, Kash Patel released, on the social platform X, a picture of Judge Dugan in handcuffs saying the “No one is above the law.”
The facts of the case, however, are not as clear-cut as the federal government alleges and Judge Dugan may have several valid defenses to her actions.
Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Judge Dugan from her judicial position, while her case is pending.
Hear more on this edition of Next Witness…Please with retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson.

Court orders are piling up against President Donald Trump and his Executive Orders and the administration seems to be setting a course of not following them. What happens next?
Judges don’t like people not following their orders and there are many options available to judges if they feel a party is flaunting non-compliance.
If a judge feels her/his order is legitimately confusing or vague, the judge may alter the original order to clarify it for the parties or the judge may also impose a stricter order than the first.
However, if the original order is clear, then the judge has the option of finding the non-complying parties in either civil or criminal contempt. If a party is found in civil contempt after a hearing, the party may be fined and put in jail until compliance with the order.
This would not apply to Trump given his immune status issued by the United States Supreme Court, but it may apply to the Attorney General or other agency heads embroiled in the non-compliance.
Civil contempt is handled through the court. Criminal contempt is initiated by a prosecutor. In Trump’s cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not bring criminal charges against itself or one of Trump’s cabinet members.
Instead, the judge would need to have a special counsel investigate and perhaps prosecute the case. This is unlikely.
If someone is found in federal criminal contempt, that person is eligible for a presidential pardon. However, that is not the case with civil contempt.
However, the enforcement relies on the U. S. Marshal’s office which is under the control of the DOJ.
The judge also has the option of sanctioning the attorneys for the non-complying party and bringing disciplinary action against them putting their law licenses in peril.
Finally, a non-complying party may be subject to a criminal charge of obstruction of justice.
This episode of “Next Witness…Please” dives deeply into a judge’s options if someone does not comply with a court order.

The second murder trial of defendant Karen Read is underway just outside Boston and this case has taken on national prominence.
Read, 45, is accused, after a night of drinking with friends, of hitting her boyfriend, Boston Police officer John O’Keefe with her SUV on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snow blizzard on the front lawn of another police officer. The two were allegedly arguing.
She is charged with second degree murder, leaving the scene of an accident and manslaughter while operating under the influence.
Her defense says she is being framed by police officers to cover a murder within the ranks.
Her first trial with 70 witnesses ended in a hung jury and a mistrial on July 1, 2024, after three days of jury deliberation.
At the first trial large groups of vocal protestors stayed outside the courthouse throughout the trial. They were predominately in favor of Read and were stirred up by a blogger called “Turtleboy.”
Her second trial began just recently and is in the process of jury selection. In the interim, the case has been the subject of a highly viewed five-part documentary on HBO/Max called “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.”
The second trial has some interesting changes. There is a new special prosecutor brought in to streamline the state’s case and make it clearer for the jury.
Meanwhile, the defense has added a new attorney, Victoria George. Surprisingly, she was an alternate juror at the first trial but never got to deliberate. This is unprecedented.
And while the trial is going on, an appeal has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court claiming double jeopardy on two of the charges. The defense has learned that the first jury had reached a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” on the murder charge and the leaving the scene accusation but when the jury reported they were deadlocked, the trial judge assumed they couldn’t decide all three cases.
Other twists include: “Turtleboy” is scheduled to be called as a witness even though he has now been charged with “intimidating witnesses” at the first trial. And Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case for the Massachusetts State Police, has been fired for sending degrading and somewhat sexual text messages to colleagues about Read during the investigation.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, our retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson use the Read cases to decipher trial strategies for you and translate what’s happening with this second trial.

With mountains of litigation piling up against President Donald Trump’s many Executive Orders, it is important for the average citizen to understand the differences between civil law and criminal law.
A civil case is when one entity brings a legal action against another entity to correct some alleged wrongdoing.
The corrective action may be an injunction to stop something from happening or to make something happen or it may be a request for money damages to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered.
The legal documents to begin a civil lawsuit are much different than a criminal case and so are the legal procedures followed to advance a case towards trial.
Civil cases often are highly complex with multiple parties suing each other in the same case.
Discovery of information, while a case is pending, also, is far more complicated in a civil case than a criminal matter.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judge co-hosts, Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the typical discovery methods.
They talk about the production of documents and the importance that documents play in most civil matters.
They also explain the differences between written interrogatories and depositions, the taking of oral testimony, under oath, of a potential witness prior to trial.
If a civil matter reaches the trial stage, there are differences in the trial from a criminal case. Our co-hosts translate those differences into everyday terms for all to understand.
By the end of this podcast episode, you will have a greater understanding of civil litigation and civil procedures.

The Trump Administration is setting out on a constitutional collision course by impounding funds that Congress has already appropriated.
The question will be: Does the president have the power to halt, delay or not spend money that Congress has appropriated for specific projects or agencies?
Article 1 Sec. 9 Clause 7 gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress has the power to appropriate money. Presidents are to carry out the will of Congress regarding spending.
For clarification, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which provides the president with a mechanics to withhold funding but not cancel it.
However, before delaying or withholding funds, the president must send a “Special Message” to Congress stating the reasons for the impoundment along with an estimate of the fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects.
The bill also says that the president may not withhold Social Security or Medicare funding.
The U.S. Supreme Court also unanimously found in the 1975 Train v. City of New York case that presidents cannot unilaterally withhold or block federal funding.
Yet, with all of this, President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE are cutting federal funding from a myriad of agencies and projects without Congressional approval or notification.
This is setting up battles in several federal courts.
Tune in to this episode of Next Witness…Please to hear further insights into the Impoundment Control Act and the cases interpreting Trump’s actions so far.

It’s time for Criminal Law 101, a primer on how criminal law works within our American judicial system.
This episode of Next Witness…Please translates some of the intricacies of the criminal law process in terms that the average listener can understand.
We must start with the premise that there is a major difference between what may be considered immoral and what is criminal.
An act is not criminal unless a legislative body (Congress, state legislature, or city council) decides it is. Legislative bodies not only determine criminality, but they also decide the severity of a crime.
Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the differences between minor criminal offenses -- misdemeanors and major crimes -- felonies.
They also outline how misdemeanor cases are initiated and the system of criminal complaints.
Our hosts also delve deeply into how felony cases originate and how grand juries are conducted and function.
They discuss the differences between a grand jury empaneled to determine probable cause and a grand jury designed to investigate potential crimes.
The differences between arraignments and initial appearance in court are also described and our judges also explain the concept of setting bond on a criminal case. What considerations may a judge consider in determining what type of bond to set for a prisoner’s release prior to trial?
Finally, our hosts give insight into the various pleas available to a criminal defendant and why they almost always plead not guilty in felony cases.

Just a month into Donald Trump’s second term as president, some of his supporters are already pushing a constitutional amendment to allow him a third term in office.
Even Trump, himself, is talking about the possibility of a third term being mandated by his MAGA supporters.
The day after Trump’s inauguration, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow Trump to run and be elected for a third term.
Currently, the 22nd Amendment which was ratified in 1951 prohibits a person from being elected more than twice as President.
The 22nd Amendment was passed after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) failed to complete his fourth term in office. He was elected four times from 1932-1944.
This episode of Next Witness…Please, examines how constitutional amendments are ratified and the dangers to our democracy that may appear on the horizon.
Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson discuss the route for an amendment that starts with Congress, and they explain a second option in which the states call for a national Constitutional Convention.
They outline the processes to be followed to enact an amendment and how amending the federal constitution differs from amending most state constitutions.
Retired judges Byers and Hodson also discuss ways that Trump could grab a third presidential term without passing a constitutional amendment.
He could spawn a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment; he could run for vice president and then have the titular president resign, or he could just
ignore the constitution altogether by refusing to leave office despite current constitutional language.

As President Donald Trump and his cohort Elon Musk target huge cuts in the federal bureaucracy, the public trusts bureaucrats more than politicians.

In an interesting 2024 survey by the Partnership for Public Service, 63 percent of Americans said they did not trust the federal government while only 31 percent said the federal government had a positive impact on the United States.

However, 91 percent believe competent civil servants are important to a strong democracy and 95 percent believe civil servants should be hired based upon merit rather than politics.

On this edition of Next Witness…Please, Dr. Stephen A. Goldman, psychiatrist, author, and historian, delves into the reasons for this dichotomy.

He discusses the importance of federal regulation and the non-partisan civil service in the wake of Trump’s executive orders targeting thousands of federal workers.

He explains the regulatory process in simple, understandable terms.

Dr. Goldman spent several years at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical product safety and risk management expert and regulator and speaks from first-hand knowledge about the importance of regulations.

He also explains the importance of the oath that federal workers take pledging their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and not to any one political leader. This independence is vital for the neutral functioning of government and has served our country well, he says.

Dr. Goldman warns that getting rid of a non-political civil service has been the target of authoritarians and fascists throughout history. He fears that, if left unprotected, ridding the government of so many trained professionals will do irreparable harm to the United States and the damage may be irreversible.