Federal Judge Denies Dugan Acquittal, Again

Milwaukee Federal Courthouse. Photo by Mariiana Tzotcheva

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman denied former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan’s motion for reconsideration of the guilty verdict against her in a federal criminal case last year.

Dugan was convicted of one count of federal misdemeanor obstruction of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in April of last year.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court ruling in a Virginia case that dealt with similar questions of obstruction and federal immigration operations. Dugan’s defense raised this new legal ruling after her conviction, arguing it applied to her case and asking Adelman to reconsider acquitting Dugan of the charge against her.

In an order issued Tuesday, Adelman said the case against Dugan “arose in a somewhat different factual context” than the case in Virginia, United States v. Hernandez, and that the 4th Circuit’s finding could not be applied. He denied her motion for reconsideration.

A sentencing date has not been set, but under federal law Dugan faces a potential fine or imprisonment of up to five years. Her sentence will ultimately be at Adelman’s discretion. Dugan also retains the ability to appeal her conviction to a higher court.

It was Dugan’s second attempt to have her conviction tossed out. Dugan initially moved for a new trial and to have her conviction vacated.

Dugan was arrested by federal agents and charged with one count of obstructing a federal immigration proceeding and one count of concealing an individual from arrest in April of last year. The charges stemmed from an incident at the county courthouse, when agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal law enforcement agencies came there to arrest an undocumented immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, appearing in Dugan’s courtroom. Dugan spoke to the agents and later let the immigrant exit her courtroom through a side door.

She was convicted in December of one count of obstruction, but not the count of concealing an individual from arrest. The obstruction conviction was secured under a federal law covering obstruction of an immigration proceeding. In the Hernandez case out of Virginia, the 4th Circuit ultimately ruled that no proceeding was taking place to be obstructed, because an enforcement proceeding, like an ICE arrest operation, is not the same thing as a “pending proceeding” under the statute.

This led Dugan’s legal team to argue that, in her case, an immigration proceeding also was not occurring the day agents showed up in the hallway of the county courthouse and that the actions that day were straightforward law enforcement actions, not part of a pending proceeding.

During oral arguments on June 3, Dugan’s attorneys and federal prosecutors went back and forth before Adelman, arguing over the meaning of the word “proceeding” and whether Dugan’s case was included in that.

Ultimately, Adelman decided a proceeding was taking place. The agents were there to make an arrest as part of an investigation and a pending immigration proceeding, he concluded.

“Defendant argues that ICE was acting as a law enforcement agency here. But this ignores the fact that, unlike, say, the FBI, ICE can issue its own warrants and adjudicate and effectuate a removal, as it did with Flores-Ruiz, without the involvement of a court,” Adelman wrote. “This makes a difference.”