Instant analysis: Dugan avoids jail time

Breaking news here in Milwaukee after a judge made the decision to not give former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan prison time for helping evade federal or helping a undocumented immigrant evade federal agents. We're joined now by criminal defense attorney Julius Kim. Julius, thanks so much for being with us. I know you've covered this for us and given your insight. Feels like so long now, over a year now. Kind of talk about your reaction to the decision today after a very long whirlwind of countless interviews of talking about this with us here. My pleasure to join you, Maddie. Thanks for having me on. Yeah, it's been over a year since this case was initiated with Judge Dugan's arrest. And so it's been a long time coming. And here we are at the final day of reckoning, so to speak, which is Judge Dugan's sentencing date. Who knows who could have predicted back when she was originally arrested that we'd be here right now for a sentencing date. But nonetheless, we're here. I don't think that her sentence really came as a great surprise to a lot of people. It didn't come as a surprise to me in all honesty. And that's because this was kind of a unique case. We have a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge that was prosecuted for actions that she took purportedly while she was on duty, doing her official duties. And a lot's happened since that time. And a lot's happened to Judge Dugan. A lot's happened with immigration enforcement. A lot's happened in our country since that time. And so the fact that this whole situation culminated with a $5,000 fine, given all of the collateral consequences that have happened to Judge Dugan really doesn't come as a shock to me because I think that the message has already been sent by virtue of the prosecution that's been taking place for the past year. And this case has been confusing. And that's why I'm so happy we can bring on experts like you who can kind of walk us through it. I mean, even as I was talking to Bill, I tripped up a little bit because of the split verdict back in December. Kind of talk about that and get us non-lawyers up to speed about what was exactly going on there. Right. Well, in the beginning of the case, a grand jury indicted Judge Dugan of two charges. One was a felony charge and one was a misdemeanor charge. The felony charge was for obstructing a federal immigration proceeding. And the misdemeanor charge amounted to an accusation that Judge Dugan helped conceal this defendant from federal authorities as they were trying to arrest him. Any charge in federal court is serious. Don't get me wrong. But between the two, the more serious is the felony. After lots of pretrial motions and litigation, there was a trial in this case. And then finally, in December of last year, a jury came down with a verdict convicting Judge Dugan of the felony count, not the misdemeanor count. She was acquitted of the misdemeanor count. But the jury ultimately convicted Judge Dugan of obstructing a federal proceeding. And that's where we stood as of today's date. Now, what's interesting is that subsequent to her conviction in December of last year, there was another case in this country that had a very similar fact pattern. And in that case, the definition of the word proceeding was called into question. And I know it sounds like nitpicking, et cetera, but that's kind of what the law is all about. And in that case, a federal court ruled that a proceeding, that the arrest of a defendant or a suspect in immigration proceeding was not necessarily a proceeding as it applies to the law in this particular case. So I think that while today is the sentencing date and it's the final date, technically at the trial level, I think that this case is still going to be going on and litigated for quite some time yet. Yeah. And I want to talk too, just about kind of reflecting back because although there's probably still a long way to go with the case, it does kind of officially wrap it with the sentencing date. I want to ask just because of everything, and you even touched on it too, like so much has developed since this began, especially like with our administration, with immigration enforcement. Do you believe the Department of Justice pursued the case to make kind of an example out of Judge Duggan? And do you think the message landed? Yeah, that's a great question. Let's not, make no mistake, the Department of Justice will go after even judges if judges commit crimes, but it was just kind of the timing of the situation and really the manner in which this case was prosecuted from the very beginning of the case, from Judge Duggan's arrest. This entire case came about because the Trump administration, by virtue of their own authority, decided that they were going to ramp up immigration enforcement in this country. And one of the ways that they were going to do that was by having ICE agents, ICE officers, go into places that were previously kind of agreed upon would be, would not be places where ICE enforcement agents would typically go to arrest people. Well, one of those places was courthouses. And after President Trump came into office, ICE began going into county courthouses across the country and arresting people there, which was kind of considered a sacred space. After that happened, I think that it was, there was some pushback against the administration at that time. And a lot of the courthouses and judges really didn't know what to do. They didn't know how to respond. There were questions about the legality of arresting people in federal courthouses. And that's, that is the kind of the context in which this entire situation came about. And I think that this case was prosecuted and not only prosecuted, but in the way it was prosecuted by a very high profile arrest, by having Judge Duggan handcuffed and shackled by photographs of Judge Duggan's arrest being taken and, and promoted on social media by, by officials, by the FBI director and the attorney general, it was meant to make a statement. It was meant to deter any judges or anyone else from getting in the way of this enhanced immigration enforcement. And I think it worked. I want to ask too, just kind of about the decision making process for Judge Adelman, because obviously she's lost her career over this. Do you think when judges are making decisions like this, they're considering like, you know, it's punishment enough that you've lost your career. Better to not add prison time. Or do you think any logic there goes into what was decided today? Yeah, absolutely. In fact, judges are required to take into consideration the impact that the case may have had on, on someone. It's not their only consideration. They also have to consider the nature of the offense, the seriousness of the offense, but they also have to take into consideration the character of the defendant, the need to deter both the defendant, him or herself from committing new bad acts or new crimes, but also the need to deter anyone else in the community that might be thinking about committing similar crimes from committing those things. And I think taking into consideration all of, all of those factors and the fact that we have a very unique defendant in this case and a sitting circuit court judge and a very well respected circuit court judge who has dedicated, one could say, her entire professional life to serving the needs of the poor, to public interest causes. When we take all of that into consideration, I think that it was fair for Judge Duggan to say, you know what, she's lost an awful lot right now. She finally made it to being a judge. She's lost that too. There's been a lot of public humiliation here. There's been a lot of personal expense to her and that given everything that's happened, no further deterrence is necessary and that the proper punishment given everything that's occurred to Judge Duggan is this fine. I want to ask now how, as a criminal defense attorney, has this case impacted your playbook at all? If you're representing an undocumented client, say tomorrow in the courtroom, what would you say is like your legal and ethical obligation there if something like this were to happen again? Yeah. I mean, I think that either myself, our firm and most criminal defense attorneys and quite honestly, most people in the criminal justice system now have sort of got this mental playbook in their head as to what they would do. We have to remember this was going on at a time when ICE agents, it was brand new. Coming into the courthouse was brand new and people really weren't sure how to respond, what their legal rights were, whether they were even allowed to do such a thing and whether it was proper to push back against that. At this point in time, we know that this is happening and going to continue to happen presumably where ICE agents are going to go into places that were previously protected or previously agreed upon where arrests would not be made. And so in those situations, you have to counsel clients. You have to tell them this is, you know, hopefully lawyers before they even get to court know what their client's status is in the country. And assuming that they have some exposure there in terms of immigration consequences, you have to have a plan in terms of what to do and what not to do. That plan might entail what to do if confronted, but it also involves planning. So whether you go to court, whether you resolve cases early, whether you resolve cases quietly, whether there's a way to avoid charges in the first place. So just the fact that we know that there is this kind of enforcement going on has impacted the kind of logistics of how we do things at this point. And obviously this isn't a case that we see every day, but if I'm Hannah Dugan, like what do I do now? I mean, you don't have your job. Is there any position she could hold at this point or is it more of kind of like an advocacy role? And I don't want to say like to milk this, that's not what I'm trying to, but, you know, kind of just to like profit off of that, given that's all, is there anything left for her to do that she can do? Oh, sure. Let's be clear. And I know this is how you meant it, but you don't need a position or a title to do good things in the community. And Judge Dugan is, I think, I believe is probably going to be kind of the perfect example of that. I don't think that this case, I think that she's going to try and catch her breath a little bit, absorb all this, let the appeal process play its through. But I also think that she's going to continue living her life the way she has been, you know, her entire professional career. And that is by figuring out ways that she can serve, that way she can contribute. Judge Dugan may have, you know, may use some poor judgment in some people's opinion or regrettable judgment in this short span of time in this particular case, but that doesn't take away who she is as a person in my mind and her intentions and the good that she can still contribute. And I think that she very well plans on continuing to contribute and knowing this community and her reputation in the community, I think a lot of organizations would welcome her with open arms. Yeah. And I think I was reading too, as we were talking about that, when she spoke right before the decision was made saying, I intend to contribute to the civic life of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, returning to a focus on projects that focus on access to justice initiatives, civics, and education. So I think you were spot on there that we'll definitely be seeing her in some sort of role like that. I want to ask then too, you were saying, you know, of course, she's going to want to catch her breath after all of this. I mean, it's definitely been such a whirlwind for everybody involved. When do you think we'll expect to hear from her again after this? You know, I don't know. Judge Dugan has been pretty quiet during the pendency of this case. She could have gone on TV and gone on blast and done a lot of interviews and really fought back in a really vocal and visible way. She didn't do that. And that doesn't surprise me because I don't think that's her personal style, quite frankly. So I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't do that here. She had an opportunity to speak in court today. She made her comments known. She knows that her comments in court are going to be reported upon by outlets like you and that we're going to be talking about it. But I think that people pretty much know where she stands on this on this matter at this point in time. So I think that she's going to be quietly go about trying to get things back on track for her personal and professional life. I don't anticipate that she's going to be going on the TV circuit here anytime soon. All right, Julius Kim, criminal defense attorney with Kim and Lavoie. Thank you so much for joining us here on the Live Desk. We have appreciated your willingness to come on and give us some great insight throughout this almost year and a half now. Julius, thank you so much.