Attorneys Spar Over Dugan’s Intent, Evidence in Closing Arguments

Milwaukee Federal Courthouse. Photo by Mariiana Tzotcheva

The fate of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan now rests in the hands of 12 jurors.

Closing arguments were made Thursday in the federal criminal trial concerning Dugan’s conduct during a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18.

During four days of hearings, the federal government has attempted to prove Dugan knowingly obstructed a federal immigration proceeding — the arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz by ICE agents — and that she knowingly concealed Flores-Ruiz from arrest.

As they did during opening statements in the trial, attorneys for the prosecution and the defense sought to tell the jury what they think the evidence shows. Only now, jurors are familiar with the evidence in the case themselves.

The federal government contends Dugan knowingly tried to obstruct ICE and help Flores-Ruiz evade arrest, that she was angry with ICE and decided to take matters into her own hands. Dugan was not confused; rather, she acted methodically to derail the ICE arrest operation.

The defense, on the other hand, is arguing the federal government has not proved the important elements of its case, that Dugan and other judges were confused and uncertain how to treat ICE and that she did not intend to obstruct a lawful proceeding. She was reacting to difficult circumstances the best she could.

The defense also attacked two pieces of evidence critical to the government’s case against Dugan: the validity of the audio recordings from Dugan’s courtroom and the credibility of testimony from federal agents and Circuit Court Judge Kristela Cervera.

Cervera is the only witness who testified to the possibility that Dugan knew who ICE agents planned to arrest. She also provided testimony suggesting Dugan’s motives were, in fact, to help Flores-Ruiz escape arrest.

Prosecution

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka began the federal government’s closing argument by reminding jurors of the oath they swore and asking them to consider the importance of the rule of law, without which, she said, there would be “chaos.”

Watzka told the jury that the government does not need to prove Dugan succeeded in obstructing a proceeding or concealing a defendant, only that she endeavored to do so. Given this, the government’s evidence is “twofold,” she said.

First, the government contends that Dugan “methodically” rounded up the federal agents and sent them away to the chief judge’s office. Then she hurried back to her courtroom to reschedule Flores-Ruiz’s case and rush him out through an alternative exit. While he was later arrested, that doesn’t matter. “The defendant’s crimes were complete the minute Mr. Flores-Ruiz entered the hallway,” Watzka said.

Watzka returned to evidence the government used to support its case, like the courtroom audio telling Flores-Ruiz’s attorney Mercedes de la Rosa to “Get your client out and come back and get a date.” She also returned to an audio recording of a discussion between Dugan and her court reporter, Joan Butz, during which time there was mention of the stairwell in the non-public hallway that Dugan sent Flores-Ruiz into.

Then there was the testimony from Cervera. Watzka showed jurors a quote from Cervera’s testimony: “Judges shouldn’t be helping defendants evade arrest.” When she took the stand Tuesday, Cervera also suggested Dugan told her on their way to check the ICE warrant that agents were there for Flores-Ruiz.

Immigration policy, which she said remains a “polarizing” issue, is not on trial; Dugan’s actions are on trial, Watzka told the jury.

“The defendant knew what she was doing was wrong and she did it anyway,” Watzka said. “Sometimes otherwise decent, law abiding citizens make one monumentally wrong decision.”

Defense

Attorney Jason Luczak began his closing statement by telling the jury they were about to decide a “very important case” with implications beyond the potential conviction of Dugan. The interest and influence brought to bear in the case issued from the very highest levels of the federal government, he said.

A government that has “the power to crush someone,” Luczak said. “And make no mistake, they’re trying to make an example out of Hannah Dugan.” The jury, he said, provides the ultimate check on the “awesome power” of the federal government.

ICE arrests at the Milwaukee County Courthouse are not normal, Luczak said, pointing to testimony from other judges and the chief judge’s public statements that confirm this. They began when the new Trump administration took office. Judges like Dugan were confused about how to react, and the state court system was being disrupted by the arrests. Under those circumstances, Dugan asked for guidance from her superiors, and on April 18, she checked for a warrant and sent the agents to the chief judge’s office.

Dugan’s concern was with the proper functioning of the state court system, Luczak said. He told jurors to look at emails she sent to colleagues expressing concern about previous ICE arrests at the courthouse. In one of them, she wrote, “We are in uncharted waters, with some very serious and even tragic community circumstances in the balance.”

Dugan was not “going out on a limb” to protect Flores-Ruiz, Luczak said, adding that as a judge she signs warrants and has people arrested all the time.

Next, Luczak set his sights on the bombshell testimony provided by Judge Cervera. Using time-stamped audio and video clips, he argued to the jury that it would have been impossible for Dugan to say anything to Cervera about Flores-Ruiz before they checked the warrant. “Judge Cervera’s just wrong, I don’t know if she’s lying,” he said.

Luczak suggested Cervera is cooperating with federal prosecutors to protect herself from criminal prosecution. He said she wanted to “throw judge Dugan under the bus” to “protect her own safety.”

“That’s what happens, you’re either a friend or an enemy of the government,” he said.

He also questioned Cervera’s testimony about Dugan’s statements to federal agents, zooming in on video footage of the interaction and arguing Dugan’s mouth does not appear to match what Cervera testified to. He then pointed out inconsistencies in testimony from federal agents, noting agents disagreed with each other on the stand about what was said to one another.

Luczak also suggested the federal government “manipulated” audio from inside of Dugan’s courtroom by playing audio from multiple microphones on the same recording, overlapping different conversations, and muddying what can be heard. He also noted that audio has many gaps, where sections of conversations, particularly the conversation about a stairwell, are inaudible.

“I don’t think you can consider this good evidence at all,” he said.

Frohling Makes Final Statement for Federal Government

Deputy U.S. Attorney Richard G. Frohling made the final statement for the federal government after Luczak finished. He repeated many of the arguments made by Watzka and went point by point through a number of Luczak’s closing arguments, characterizing them as a collection of “red herrings” and misdirection.

Frohling noted that Dugan’s own court clerk had never seen the judge send someone out of the courtroom using the jury door, and that the discussion of the stairway leading away from agents in the private hallway proved Dugan knew what she was doing.

He told jurors the case is not about immigration policy, but about preserving the rule of law, and that it would be a “very problematic and frankly very depressing state of affairs” if the rule of law was overridden by Dugan because she doesn’t agree with it.

“Distractions may have worked on April 18 but they shouldn’t work on December 18,” he said.