Authored by Jonathan Turley,
A jury in Milwaukee this week proved that it takes more than a robe to act like a judge. On Thursday, Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of the most serious count brought against her in a case that captivated many in the nation. Dugan famously told a fellow judge to wear her robe in the hallway to confront federal officers seeking to arrest a suspect.
A jury found Dugan guilty of obstruction in helping an illegal migrant evade arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. She was acquitted of the misdemeanor charge of concealing Flores Ruiz.
Judge Dugan was lionized by the left, including attorneys and politicians, for her effort to facilitate the escape of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. She had a prominent legal team, including former Solicitor General Paul Clement and former U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic. Retired Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske agreed to be the trustee over a large defense fund.
This week, we discussed how Dugan’s colleague Judge Kristela Cervera delivered a heavy blow to her defense in testifying how Dugan pulled her into the dispute with the agents and how she acted improperly in the matter.
Cervera said that Dugan specifically told her to keep her robe on and that she was reluctant to do so: “I didn’t want to walk in the hallway with my robe on.” Dugan, however, allegedly wanted the agents to see them in their robes as a sign of authority.
She said that the agent remained respectful but that Dugan was getting upset in the confrontation: “Her irritation seemed to progress to anger. I thought she could have been a little more diplomatic.”
That coincides with the testimony of FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Baker, who stated, “I would say angry is the best way to describe it.”
Likewise, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer Joseph Zuraw stated that Dugan ordered him to “get out” of the public hallway and told him to go to the chief judge’s office. She then allegedly helped the suspect escape through a side door.
Cervera also testified that she was “shocked” by Dugan’s later conduct and that “judges should not be helping defendants evade arrest.” She added, “I was mortified. I thought that someone may think that I was part of some of what happened.”
Cervera said she was shocked by attorneys praising her for helping Flores-Ruiz escape.
She described attorneys pumping their fists and telling her, “You go, Judge,” and saying, “Judge, you’re ‘goated’ now.”
She said that she avoided Dugan but ran into her in an elevator. She noted that Cervera told her she was “in the dog house” with the Chief Judge for trying to help Flores-Ruiz.
Cervera delivered a particularly devastating line before the jury in stating categorically that “Judges shouldn’t help criminal defendants evade arrest.”
The testimony supported the allegation that Dugan knowingly sought to help Flores-Ruiz and that her actions were outside her role as a judge in the courthouse.
We discussed how Dugan could not have had a better jury pool in the liberal district or a more fortunate choice as presiding judge. Indeed, I previously wrote that it would take jury nullification to acquit Dugan on the strong case against her. If that was the strategy, it collapsed under the testimony of Cervera and others.
Her fate may have been set by her decision not to testify. It also likely reflected how damning the evidence was against her. If she took the stand, she would have been forced to address glaring inconsistencies in her position as well as public comments that she made before trial.
I previously wrote about my surprise that she posted a videotape statement on her actions and how she was the champion for the rule of law. The statement included assertions that she would send defendants through the door whenever she felt it was warranted.
The jury did not agree with Democratic politicians and pundits who heralded her actions. MSNOW regular Norm Eisen and the executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund declared, “this case is a five-alarm fire for our democracy and one of its foundations: judicial independence. Prosecuting a judge for how she runs her courtroom is outrageous and unlawful.”
Abbe Lowell, who represented Hunter Biden, declared
“Judge Dugan’s arrest and prosecution are a blatant attack on judicial independence. By targeting a state judge for her courtroom management, this Administration is signaling its alarming willingness to coerce state courts into executing its federal immigration agenda – an unacceptable assault on federalism and a grave threat to the public’s trust in our court system. Protecting judges from such intimidation is paramount to upholding the rule of law for every American.”
Monica Isham, a circuit judge in Sawyer County, not only defended Judge Hannah Dugan in an email to other state judges but added that she “has no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents] and sent to a concentration camp.”
Dozens of judges signed statements in support of Dugan, including Judge Michael Luttig, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Ret.).
I strongly disagreed with those views, excusing the clearly injudicious and unlawful conduct of Judge Dugan.
Ultimately, Judge Lynn Adelman, a liberal long-standing jurist on the court, rejected half-baked arguments of judicial immunity in such actions. Twelve jurors in Milwaukee then rejected all of the atmospherics and bluster in ruling according to the law.
They did what Dugan did not: they followed the rule of law rather than any personal or political impulse.
Dugan could now face up to five years in prison, though such a sentence is highly unlikely in her case.
Loading recommendations…
Read the full article here