Judge Hannah Dugan Convicted of Felony Obstruction in Milwaukee County

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been convicted of felony obstruction in a notable case relating to immigration enforcement. This trial marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the judiciary’s role in federal immigration actions.

Overview of the Case Against Judge Dugan

Hannah Dugan, 66, faced charges for obstructing federal agents involved in an immigration arrest outside her courtroom. The jury, comprising seven men and five women, reached its verdict after more than six hours of deliberation. Dugan was found not guilty of a lesser charge involving concealing a wanted person.

• Charges: Felony obstruction and misdemeanor concealing a wanted person.
• Verdict: Guilty of obstruction, not guilty of concealment.
• Trial Duration: Over six hours of jury deliberation.

Incident Details

The events leading to the trial unfolded on April 18 at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Dugan was presiding over her courtroom when federal agents attempted to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man charged with battery who was in the U.S. illegally. Dugan learned of the planned arrest from her clerk.

Concerned about procedures, Dugan questioned the agents and directed them to the chief judge’s office. She later expedited Flores-Ruiz’s case and guided him through a non-public area of the courthouse, allowing him to escape into a public corridor. Federal agents pursued him, resulting in his arrest after a brief chase.

Legal Proceedings

Following the incident, FBI agents arrested Judge Dugan a week later. Flores-Ruiz has since been deported.

Trial Dynamics

The prosecution’s case relied on various witness testimonies and video evidence to suggest Dugan acted with the intent to obstruct federal enforcement. Five specific actions were highlighted during the trial, showcasing behavior deemed unusual in a courtroom context. The prosecution aimed to portray Dugan as deliberately defying federal agents.

• Key Witness: Judge Kristela Cervera testified about Dugan’s actions, emphasizing the importance of cooperation with federal agents.
• Defense Argument: Dugan’s attorneys argued she was simply following protocol and not obstructing justice.

Implications of the Verdict

The case is noteworthy as it represents the first instance of a state judge facing trial for obstructing immigration agents. It highlights the contentious relationship between the judiciary and the federal government, particularly during the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policy enforcement.

As the conflict between judicial independence and immigration enforcement continues to unfold, this trial serves as a pivotal example for future legal and political battles.