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. For jurors, the incongruity was likely unavoidable. If she was acting in furtherance of her judicial duties, why wouldn’t she explain her actions directly to the jurors? She clearly has a right to remain silent and prosecutors cannot use that silence against her. However, jurors likely found the silence deafening.
It may also have 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’s conviction of a felony only reinforces the outrage over the Biden Administration dropping charges against Massachusetts Judge Shelley Joseph who, in November, was given simply a mere reprimand by the bar in a similar case.
Dugan could now face up to five years in prison, though such a sentence is highly unlikely in her case.
The abhorrent disobedience to the Constitution and the laws there under by the leftists at all levels of authority must be challenged by the federal judicial apparatus. This latest example of a singular lawless judge or a runaway DA in Georgia, are minor in comparison to the lawless Cities and States issuing sanctuary status to law-breaking immigrants and then granting the lawless with state or city benefits [sometimes with miss applied federal funds], and protection for the lawless immigrant from containment or incarceration. The left I believe has started on their proposed path to an interpretive constitution, by first assaulting given interpretations, to laws of feelings regardless of what’s written: oh, you poor soul, the laws are so harsh, but I will forgive you, now, on your way, go, go I say, Go!
ALL IMMIGRANTS THAT ENTERED ILLEGALLY ARE LAWLESS.
I’m curious when the process begins to not allow her to be a state court judge anymore.
Was Trump wearing a blue dress as he sucked off Bill Clinton?
You’ve the mind of a democrat.
Trump was a Democrat. So was Reagan.
Justice, maybe, at last.
Judicial officers have the ethical obligation to not allow themselves to be used as character witnesses. The judges who wrote statements in support of Dugan appear to have violated their professional responsibility.
However strong the juristocracy’s desire to claim and exercise executive power may be, it in fact possesses none—not even a scintilla.
The process of adjudication must exclude any exercise of executive power or authority.
A president or judge accused of serious criminal conduct may be impeached by Congress.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
judicial
1a: of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
judge
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 4, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Dear Prof Turley,
Another win for the Gripper. .. better get them while they’re hot.
Historically, big wig high-priced ‘Democrat lawyers’ have been pretty useless. Obviously. Again, obstruction of ICE in courthouse operations (if that’s what she was doing) is not, necessarily, the same thing as obstruction of justice.. . it all depends, imho.
A good lawyer would have framed it as ‘turf battle’ for justice.
In any case, we’re the HOTTEST country in the world. If Trump ran a funeral parlor . .. people would stop dying.
*before the Gripper . .. ‘we had men in women’s sports and transgender for everybody’!
History has been made. Never before has a state level judge been convicted in federal court of obstructing the federal government in a similar manner. A precedent has been set, a judicial action severely limited. Judicial immunity has been pierced. The implications of this conviction will survive well beyond our times.
Abbey Lowell would have you believe that if a defendant was in state court to answer to a warrant for outstanding parking tickets, the judge would have the right to manage her courtroom by assisting in evading arrest by federal authorities on a warrant for terrorism and mass murder. Why would the right to manage the courtroom be limited to immigration laws? If the authority is there it applies equally to all federal warrants.
Criminals would be committing state crimes just to get into a courtroom where robed enablers would provide them with the means to escape.
I’m no fan of Abby Lowell, but in my limited experience in courtrooms the judge has always exerted the ‘right'(?) to manage it! .. and it’s not ‘limited to immigration laws’.
Lets suppose the judge was presiding over a mass murder suspect .. . would ICE have the right to bust in and interrupt the mass murder trial over an immigration issue?
ICE would do well to simply wait outside the courthouse.
*if for no other reason than common curtesy between the ‘executive’ and ‘judicial’ branches of our government.
The nationwide pattern of judicial rulings opposing President Trump and the officers, departments, and agencies of the executive branch collectively constitutes rebellion and insurrection, thereby authorizing the calling forth of the militia and the imposition of martial law.
She is an attorney. In addition to being removed as a judge, she should be disbarred.
“A jury in Milwaukee this week proved that it takes more than a robe to act like a judge.”
Judicial self-restraint: Self-imposed discipline by judges in deciding cases without permitting themselves to indulge their own
personal views or ideas
which may be inconsistent with existing decisional or STATUTORY law. – BLD, 6th.
We can only hope that leftist ideologues, who go into law careers specifically to impose emotional-social programming, refusing to recognize or enforce federal laws, will be deterred.
Judge Dugan broke the law because of bad judgement and the probable inflated sense of her own moral convictions.
There must be some method besides impeachment or criminal charges to hold judges to account for releasing career criminals from custody who then go on to commit murder and mayhem. We have seen too many such outrages committed by judges with inflated moral convictions.
There’s the ballot box for Wisconsin judges, who are elected by popular vote. But perhaps you meant something beyond that?
Or if you’re referring to federal judges, which have been in the news quite a bit lately for their activist anti-Trump rulings, then impeachment is almost impossible. And those rulings amount to poor-quality judging but not a chargeable criminal offense.
Very little is ever said about the female crime victims that were waiting to face their (alleged) abuser when the presiding Judge helped the man that (allegedly) beat them navigate areas of the courthouse not open to the public so that he could escape arrest. Just more cannon fodder that was sacrificed for whatever is considered the higher purpose I guess. Keep preaching about the moral high ground while you trample over the very principles you were lecturing us about last week.
Now, do BOASBERG!
Hear, hear!
Boasberg et al.
Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was appearing in Dugan’s court on misdemeanor battery charges. Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national, was arrested outside the courthouse after a short chase by the immigration agents and has since been deported.
I think that should be the default. That everyone arrested on a misdemeanor charge, but not tried, should be removed from the USA to some country that will accept them. I understand that Russia is looking for men. The US could empty prisons in a short time this way, removing every minor criminal.
This may interrupt Trump’s repeated pardoning of felons, some violent, some drug dealers, many having stolen vast sums of money.
Recall that it was also a crime to hide Anne Frank and her family.
If they’re in the US illegally, then yes, they should be deported regardless of whether they’re charged with an additional crime. If they’re here legally, then no, they shouldn’t be deported based on a misdemeanor charge.
Comparing Anne Frank and her family to Flores-Ruiz, is really sick and shows your true colors.
“Sick with terrible true colors.”
The American Founders allowed the vote to only those who were male, European, and 21, with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
For good reason: for the good of America.
He wasn’t a citizen. He didn’t have permanent resident status. He was here illegally. He was in for domestic abuse. Why should we keep him here in the United States. Kicking people like this (non citizens here illegally) out of the country is not at all unreasonable.
If Dugan robbed a bank while armed with an AK 47 she likely expects immunity from prosecution so long as she wears .her judicial robes while doing it.
I doubt she’ll see the inside of a cell, but I’m pleased with the verdict and would be satisfied to see her disbarred. Enough is enough from these people and their dereliction of duty. Nothing the modern left does anymore smacks of fairness, good will, or authenticity. Absolutely nothing.
You or I would get jail time. I’m sick and tired of these officials getting off simply because of their status. Send a message!
JHIP
Juristocracy Has Its Privileges
I wouldn’t be too quick to say she won’t get any prison time. She might get some even if not the max.
As for disbarred, yes for sure based on a felony conviction, in addition to being permanently removed from the bench. No longer a judge or even a lawyer. Was it really worth it?
@oldman
Would love to see it! I know they wouldn’t hesitate to lock you or I up for far less.