Stephen Eichler, J.D.
Retired Attorney at Law
Member, International Bar Association
Based on the facts as described, assisting a non-violent undocumented alien in avoiding arrest does not automatically constitute obstruction of justice under federal law. Such conduct is more appropriately analyzed under federal immigration statutes, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which addresses the harboring, concealing, or shielding of undocumented individuals from detection or arrest.
Under this statute, an individual may be charged with a federal felony if the government can demonstrate that the person knowingly and intentionally assisted an undocumented alien in avoiding detection or apprehension by federal authorities. A conviction under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) carries a potential penalty of up to five (5) years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. Enhanced penalties may apply if the conduct was undertaken for financial gain or resulted in bodily injury or death.
By contrast, traditional federal obstruction of justice statutes, codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, generally require interference with a judicial proceeding, congressional inquiry, or federal investigation, such as providing false statements to investigators, tampering with witnesses, or destroying evidence. In the absence of such conduct, merely assisting an undocumented individual in avoiding arrest typically does not satisfy the statutory elements of obstruction of justice.
In evaluating potential sentencing exposure, federal courts routinely consider mitigating factors pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include the defendant’s lack of prior criminal history, record of public service, professional contributions to the justice system, and acceptance of responsibility. Where the defendant is a first-time offender with an otherwise exemplary background—including prior service as a judge—such considerations may support a substantially reduced sentence.
Under these circumstances, it would be reasonable to anticipate a non-custodial or minimally custodial disposition, such as a period of supervised release (e.g., two years) accompanied by a financial penalty, potentially in the range of $50,000, together with applicable court costs, subject to the court’s discretion and any relevant guideline calculations.
Stephen Eichler, J.D.
Retired Attorney at Law
Member, International Bar Association
Why did the misdemeaner NOT GUILTY lead the news headline... She was GUILTY OF THE FELONY charge.
Where is the disbarment procedure...
John H Briggs > Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, RetiredDecember 20, 2025 at 8:30pm
Merry Christmas, Colonel Sir! That is what I am assuming will happen as per my reply (scroll down). If that does not happen, someone else needs to lose their post and go to jail via a timely court appearance!
Steve Eichler > Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, RetiredDecember 20, 2025 at 4:30pm
Disbarment will be the result of the sentence from the court, along with the cancellation of her ABA membership and possibly the removal of other credentials. I gave my opinion of what the court will do, and it doesn't mean I agree with it.
As a resident of Milwaukee, WI - I was surprised at this verdict. The trial judge is a very well known liberal and most people in Milwaukee tend to be libberal. However this gives me hope that there are still people in the city who believe in law and order and are against illegal entry into the USA. I will be very interested to see if she actually serves time.
In some states, a judge does not need to be a lawyer; thirty-two states allow non-lawyer judges to preside over certain cases, including low-level state courts. However, many states require judges in higher courts to have legal training. History shows us she will receive a job teaching at some university making more money than she did as a judge (not counting potential payoffs). SHE NEEDS TO GO TO PRISON, PERIOD!!!
Replies
Legal Opinion
Stephen Eichler, J.D. Retired Attorney at Law Member, International Bar Association
Based on the facts as described, assisting a non-violent undocumented alien in avoiding arrest does not automatically constitute obstruction of justice under federal law. Such conduct is more appropriately analyzed under federal immigration statutes, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which addresses the harboring, concealing, or shielding of undocumented individuals from detection or arrest.
Under this statute, an individual may be charged with a federal felony if the government can demonstrate that the person knowingly and intentionally assisted an undocumented alien in avoiding detection or apprehension by federal authorities. A conviction under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) carries a potential penalty of up to five (5) years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. Enhanced penalties may apply if the conduct was undertaken for financial gain or resulted in bodily injury or death.
By contrast, traditional federal obstruction of justice statutes, codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, generally require interference with a judicial proceeding, congressional inquiry, or federal investigation, such as providing false statements to investigators, tampering with witnesses, or destroying evidence. In the absence of such conduct, merely assisting an undocumented individual in avoiding arrest typically does not satisfy the statutory elements of obstruction of justice.
In evaluating potential sentencing exposure, federal courts routinely consider mitigating factors pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include the defendant’s lack of prior criminal history, record of public service, professional contributions to the justice system, and acceptance of responsibility. Where the defendant is a first-time offender with an otherwise exemplary background—including prior service as a judge—such considerations may support a substantially reduced sentence.
Under these circumstances, it would be reasonable to anticipate a non-custodial or minimally custodial disposition, such as a period of supervised release (e.g., two years) accompanied by a financial penalty, potentially in the range of $50,000, together with applicable court costs, subject to the court’s discretion and any relevant guideline calculations.
Stephen Eichler, J.D. Retired Attorney at Law Member, International Bar Association
Why did the misdemeaner NOT GUILTY lead the news headline... She was GUILTY OF THE FELONY charge.
Where is the disbarment procedure...
Merry Christmas, Colonel Sir! That is what I am assuming will happen as per my reply (scroll down). If that does not happen, someone else needs to lose their post and go to jail via a timely court appearance!
Disbarment will be the result of the sentence from the court, along with the cancellation of her ABA membership and possibly the removal of other credentials. I gave my opinion of what the court will do, and it doesn't mean I agree with it.
I doubt she will serve time because ALL the people they have done investigations on NOT ONE has served time!!!
As a resident of Milwaukee, WI - I was surprised at this verdict. The trial judge is a very well known liberal and most people in Milwaukee tend to be libberal. However this gives me hope that there are still people in the city who believe in law and order and are against illegal entry into the USA. I will be very interested to see if she actually serves time.
In some states, a judge does not need to be a lawyer; thirty-two states allow non-lawyer judges to preside over certain cases, including low-level state courts. However, many states require judges in higher courts to have legal training. History shows us she will receive a job teaching at some university making more money than she did as a judge (not counting potential payoffs). SHE NEEDS TO GO TO PRISON, PERIOD!!!
IMHO, she should ALSO be disbarred AND serve time!!
Absolutely! Not a judge, not an attorney, in prison! Will we see it????????
No longer is she a judge!
Na Na Na Na Hey Hey-ey Goodbye