As the trial of Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County Circuit Judge, progresses, she is preparing to present her defense against charges of obstruction and concealment. The case stems from allegations that Dugan assisted a Mexican immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, in evading federal authorities during an immigration enforcement operation.
Trial Overview and Testimonies
On Wednesday, prosecutors concluded their case after three days of testimony, aiming to demonstrate that Dugan intentionally interfered with federal agents attempting to arrest Flores-Ruiz at the courthouse. The incident occurred on April 18, 2023, when Flores-Ruiz was scheduled for a hearing before Dugan. Federal agents had staked out the courthouse, prepared to apprehend him following his previous arrest on state battery charges.
According to the prosecution, Dugan confronted agents from a federal immigration task force, instructing them to report to the chief judge’s office. Witnesses testified that Dugan, along with another judge, Kristela Cervera, then led Flores-Ruiz out through a private door, circumventing the agents waiting to arrest him. This maneuver resulted in a foot chase through traffic as agents pursued the immigrant.
Prosecutors presented transcripts of recorded conversations from Dugan’s courtroom, revealing that she expressed willingness to “take the heat” for her actions in facilitating Flores-Ruiz’s exit. Testimony indicated that her actions effectively divided the enforcement team and left them unable to safely execute the arrest.
Defense Arguments and Legal Precedents
Dugan’s defense team countered the prosecution’s claims, asserting that she did not intend to obstruct the arrest and was adhering to a draft courthouse policy. This policy reportedly instructed court employees to refer immigration agents to supervisors instead of allowing them to make arrests directly in the courthouse.
The defense contended that despite the unconventional circumstances, Flores-Ruiz was visible to agents as he exited through the private door, and they could have apprehended him at any time after he left Dugan’s courtroom. They filed a motion on Wednesday requesting U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman to acquit Dugan without sending the case to jury deliberation. The motion argued that while Dugan’s actions may have caused inconvenience, they did not amount to intentional concealment.
Legal experts note that longstanding precedents typically protect individuals from civil arrests while entering or exiting courthouses, framing immigration removal proceedings as civil actions. Such motions for direct acquittal are a common aspect of criminal trials after the prosecution concludes its case.
As the trial approaches its conclusion, Dugan’s defense is expected to begin presenting witnesses, with the possibility of closing arguments commencing as early as Thursday afternoon. The unusual nature of charges against a sitting judge has drawn significant public attention, particularly in the context of Donald Trump‘s immigration policies, which critics argue have targeted judicial figures opposing such measures.
This case reflects broader tensions regarding immigration enforcement and judicial independence, raising questions about the role of the judiciary in matters of federal immigration law.
