Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Found Guilty of "Obstructing Federal Agents Seeking to Make an Immigration Arrest Outside Her Courtroom"

So reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (John Diedrich, Mary Spicuzza & Hope Karnopp):

On April 18, Dugan was presiding over a misdemeanor court on the sixth floor of the Milwaukee County Courthouse….

Federal agents were there to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, charged with battery and appearing before Dugan. Flores-Ruiz illegally re-entered the U.S. in 2013.

Dugan learned of the planned arrest from her clerk. She went to the main corridor with another judge, questioned the agents, and directed them to the chief judge's office, who was working on a plan on how such arrests were to be treated.

Dugan returned to her courtroom, moved Flores-Ruiz's case up first and then directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a non-public door and into a hallway used by judges and staff, witnesses testified.

Flores-Ruiz and his attorney emerged into the public corridor. Federal agents followed them. He was arrested outside the courthouse after a brief foot chase.

Comments

[Kazinski]

No one is above the law.

[Darwinnie]

That’s true. Or at least I wish.

[santamonica811]

...except Trump [you forgot to add].

[Krayt]

That sentiment is part of a larger principle, that everybody is equal before the law. Tyrant kings would and did deliberately go after foes for the purpose of disabling them, and not because of some noble adherance to concerns for rule of law.

This problem was so bad the Founding Fathers put at least two amendments in the Bill of Rights to seek to forestall such abuse. Remember the tyrant kings weren't seeking to pour through papers to plant false things. They were looking for inevitable things, picayune or not, likely to be in said papers of anyone with enough wealth and power to challenge the throne.

Ya just gotta keep looking! That's the game! Facete concern for rule of law, when you really just wanna git 'im!

You know. Like the Rs did with Clinton in the 90s?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

That doesn't sound like they ruled he was above the law. Sounds like they ruled that so long as he was exercising his constitutional powers, his actions are inherently lawful, but feel free to prosecute him if he shoots someone on 5th avenue.

[Joe_dallas]

In spite of the clear language in the opinion which you quoted, we still have commentators here repetitively posting otherwise.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"except Trump "

Huh? As you guys love to point out, Trump was convicted of several felonies. And after he paid his debt to society, he managed to make good and convince the people to trust him again with the presidency.

It really is a touching story of redemption. Brings a tear to your eye.

[GKHoff]

...except Hillary you forgot to include.

[Bubba Jones]

Except Trump

[Flatulus]

I'm confused by her lawyer's statements in the linked article. I'm looking at 18 U.S.C 1510 and 1071, and while I see how the same acts could violate both, I don't see much overlap in the elements. The split verdict seems perfectly fine.

[not guilty]

The linked article is behind a paywall, so I don't know what the defense lawyer said.

It is difficult to see that the specific conduct alleged in Count II of the indictment (which charges 18 U.S.C. § 1505, not § 1510) could have been committed without also violating 18 U.S.C. § 1071.

I'm not sure what effect the collateral estoppel component of the prohibition of double jeopardy, see, Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), may have as to the acquittal on Count One.

[Flatulus]

Strange, I can access it without hitting a paywall. The reporter paraphrases him but doesn't quote him:

"Dugan attorney Steve Biskupic highlighted that the jury delivered a split verdict and the elements between the two counts are the same...Biskupic said the team would be filing a motion asking Adelman to set aside the conviction, especially based on the split verdict."

The reporter might not be accurately characterizing his statements, but it's clear the elements of the two offenses are not "the same." It might seem thin, but I can see how a jury would conclude that she obstructed the officers without "harbor[ing] or conceal[ing]" the suspect under 1701, as long as that phrase is read narrowly.

[not guilty]

That makes some sense. An unsuccessful attempt or "endeavor" could conceivably violate § 1505 but not § 1071, in that the latter requires a completed offense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My take is that since they caught him, but needed extra effort to do so, they obstructed but did not conceal.

[David Nieporent]

The linked article is behind a paywall, so I don't know what the defense lawyer said.

Not exactly what you referred to above, but you can read the judge's motion for judgment of acquittal containing her arguments here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111896/gov.uscourts.wied.111896.88.0.pdf

[ReaderY]

I find it curious that her lawyer ommitted the title “Honorable.” Given that (unsurprisingly) several of her defenses are based on the powers and immunities of her judicial office, I would expect her lawyer to bend over backwards to emphasize her status wherever possible.

[ReaderY]

This seems very straightforward to me. An obvious difference is that Count 2 requires proof that the defendent acted “corruptly.” The jury could easily have concluded that while she commit the acts charged, she did not do so for corrupt purposes or in a corrupt manner.

[David Nieporent]

Except they convicted on Count 2, so that's not what they concluded.

[Area Man]

Juries are allowed to return logically inconsistent verdicts. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984); Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932). It has nothing to do with double jeopardy or collateral estoppel. Those are restrictions on re-prosecution (or double punishment), not prosecution in the first instance.

[SKofNJ]

Plus, under federal law, even inconsistent verdicts are allowable.

[Kleppe]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer cretin. She should have taken the deal.

[darkknight9]

That was fast. I thought they were starting the defenses case today.

[Michael Ejercito]

Yeah.

some people online claimed she actually led the person in question to a hallway where there were federal agents.

[David Nieporent]

Some witnesses in the courtroom, too. The 1071 case basically boiled down to this:

She led the guy and his lawyer out a side door of her courtroom into a non-public hallway. If the guy had gone left, there were stairs that would've led him down to the street without him encountering the agents. If the guy had gone right, he'd have come right to the public hallway where agents were waiting. The guy went right.

There was some evidence that she was planning to tell him to do the former. But the testimony of the immigrant's public defnder was that after Dugan escorted the guy out to the non-public hallway, she directed him to go right — back to the main hallway — not left. If she did that, then there was no concealment.

[Brett Bellmore]

If that was her intention, there were a lot of prior things she'd have done differently.

Which I guess was the jury's conclusion, too.

[SKofNJ]

My understanding is that there was testimony at least implying that she did direct others to take the guy to the door on the right.

[SJKofNJ]

Oops. I meant there was testimony that she directed the alien to the door not leading to the public hallway.

[David Nieporent]

That was fast. I thought they were starting the defenses case today.

They were/did. But in real cases as opposed to TV ones, criminal defendants rarely put on much of a case — the burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all, and it's difficult to prove a negative — and here the facts were nearly undisputed. Unless Dugan was going to testify — which defendants virtually never do, and there was likely no way to explain herself that would've made her look better — her case in chief was always going to be quick. She put on a character witness and little else.

[darkknight9]

Good to know. 🙂 Thank you!

[Zayphar]

"The virtuous have nothing to fear."
Clearly she assumed that the obvious righteousness of her actions would protect her from any possible negative consequences.

She forget the lesson from 1L.
The law is not concerned with right and wrong, it is only concerned with the correct application of the law, not perceptions of justice. We can hope that Justice will prevail, but the Law is a crude instrument to achieve that devine state.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd state it differently: Ideally, those crafting the law are concerned with right and wrong, but the law is not much concerned with whether those violating it think the law is right or wrong.

[Krayt]

Clearly she assumed that the obvious righteousness of her actions would protect her from any possible negative consequences.

I remember during the run up to Gulf War I, a woman in the reserves declined to be activated, because, you know, anti-war still had much successful cachet after a 20 year run. "The military can suck it. Oooh, where did everybody go?"

[Swede425]

An expensive virtue signal or padding her resume for CNN to hire her as a legal analyst/talking head?

[Brett Bellmore]

Possibly as much as 5 years hard time and a $250K fine, that's some pretty expensive virtue signaling, and as resume padding, CNN would have to give her a pretty prime gig for it to make sense.

Most likely she'd thought she'd get away with it.

[Swede425]

She'll land on her feet, I'm sure of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Going to have to land on her feet doing something else for a living, though, I would hope.

So, let's assume she gets a couple years in the slammer, and pays $100k in fines. Does she get to return to the bench afterwards? Retain her law license?

Federal judges keep their jobs during good behavior, but she's just been convicted of bad behavior. What happens next in terms of her employment?

[Swede425]

I'm sure the Soros organization can find something fitting for a judge of her caliber if CNN is unwilling to take a little heat.

[branford]

The judge is notoriously left wing and easy on defendants generally. Some thought he might even have dismissed the case before trial, and was probably hoping jury nullification would save him.

There's no way in hell he sentences Dugan to any prison time, despite a felony conviction, absolutely no contrition, and clearly knowing better and increased responsibility as a sitting judge that has not brought the judiciary into disrepute. The only mitigating factor is that she has no criminal record.

Expect an extreme downward departure from the federal sentencing guidelines. Not totally impossible he dismisses the case due to the inconsistent verdict, believing it will protect Dugan from punishment during her long appeals, and maybe the DOJ will eventually drop the case or agree to a deal before Trump leaves office.

[SKofNJ]

Inconsistent verdicts are perfectly acceptable under federal law. The case law leaves no room for doubt on that issue. Which is not to say the trial judge will not rule for the defendant on this. But if the trial judge does that, he will only be buying the defendant time. He will be reversed on appeal, maybe even with some harsh language in the opinion about a trial court's duty to follow precedent, disagree with it or not.

[branford]

I bet the defense is still going to pursue the claim she has total civil and criminal immunity for anything she does in her courtroom (or really courthouse, since some of her actions were outside her personal courtroom).

Any appeals are just to try to delay everything until Trump is out of office, and a Dem president's DOJ to change position and not oppose the appeals, agree to a dismissal "in the interests of justice", or recommend the barest slap on the wrist for sentencing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Shelly Joseph in Massachusetts did...

[DDHarriman]

>The law is not concerned with right and wrong, it is only concerned with the correct application of the law, not perceptions of justice.

Someone should notify KJB, we have a sitting SCOTUS justice whom seemingly never heard of such a concept.

[momo]

KJB is the future of law

It will be applied inconsistently based on the judge's view of morality, and probably based on your race, gender, and politics.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The virtuous have nothing to fear" might work when determining final judgment after death, but the average person realizes "virtue" and "the criminal law" are not the same thing.

She probably didn't assume otherwise.

She thought the law as a whole would protect her. It might still.

[Joe_dallas]

Good news from the HHS on mental health care -.

https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-acts-bar-hospitals-performing-sex-rejecting-procedures-children.html

[Bubba Jones]

I think it's interesting that jurors were willing to convict.

I struggle to imagine anyone I meet on a daily basis would dispassionately apply a law in a case like this.

[No One Of Consequence]

The Motion for Acquittal kind of reminds me of Squeaky Fromme's defense that "the gun didn't go off."

[Z Crazy]

How so?

[Z Crazy]

This bitch committed crimes to help illegalkind, the same illegalkind that murdered Laken Riley while trying to rape her white pussy!

What a traitor!