Not guilty verdict in ICE case sends stark message to Trump DOJ’s political prosecutions

[Thiệu Ngô]

It’s not only grand jurors who have rejected the Trump administration’s charges. A trial jury just did the same.

By Jordan Rubin

There’s already a stunning pattern of grand jurors rejecting indictments sought by the Justice Department in President Donald Trump’s second term — specifically when it comes to allegations of assaulting law enforcement in connection with protests against the administration’s abuses of power. As time goes on, we’ll learn what trial jurors think of the politically motivated cases that make it that far.

We got a prime example Thursday in the case of Sidney Reid, who was acquitted in Washington, D.C.

Grand jurors had declined to approve a felony indictment against her a shocking three times. But instead of taking those serial rejections as a sign of serious problems with the case (a rare failure to get past even one grand jury should’ve done that), the DOJ in Jeanine Pirro’s office moved forward with a misdemeanor prosecution, which didn’t require grand jury approval. Law enforcement had alleged that Reid “forcefully pushed” an FBI agent’s hand against a cement wall and “caused lacerations” on the agent’s hand during an immigration enforcement protest.

Powerful statements from Reid and her lawyers following the not guilty verdict frame the stakes in her case — and in Trump’s second term more broadly. She said the verdict “shows that this administration and their peons are not able to invoke fear in all citizens.” Calling the president “a crazy person,” she said she even felt sorry for the prosecutors, “who must be burdened by Trump’s irrational and unfounded hatred for his fellow man.” Her lawyers, Tezira Abe and Eugene Ohm of the federal public defender’s office, said the DOJ “can continue to take these cases to trial to suppress dissent and to try and intimidate the people. But in the end, as long as we have a jury system, our citizens will continue to rebuke the DOJ through speedy acquittals.”



In another notable case, in which D.C. grand jurors refused to approve felony charges against sandwich thrower Sean Dunn, prosecutors are also moving forward with a misdemeanor case after failing to get an indictment. Ahead of his potential trial, this week Dunn filed a motion to dismiss the misdemeanor assault charge based on vindictive and selective prosecution.

Calling his prosecution “a blatant abuse of power,” his lawyers argued that the government “has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical — were it not for the unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn.” They noted that he “tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection” officer, but they maintained that “that act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it.”

Dunn isn’t the first and won’t be the last defendant to press a vindictive or selective prosecution claim against the Trump DOJ. James Comey is expected to file one next week against the charges brought in Virginia by Trump-installed lawyer Lindsey Halligan, who secured an indictment against the former FBI director after the president named him on his revenge list (grand jurors rejected one of the three charges sought by Halligan, who hadn’t prosecuted a case before and brought this one over the objections of career prosecutors).

Halligan similarly secured an indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose prosecution Trump also demanded after she brought the civil fraud case against him. James is due to appear in court next week to be arraigned on her fraud indictment, and she may likewise pursue pre-trial motions like the ones Comey has signaled he’ll file. The DOJ obtained an indictment Thursday in Maryland against another Trump critic, John Bolton.

While the standard to secure indictments is relatively low — making the failure to get them in several cases this year so remarkable — prosecutors must convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt in any case that makes it to trial. Reid’s acquittal is a message to the administration — and to the lawyers trying these cases — that it’s one thing to get past (or in Reid’s case, around) a grand jury, but trial juries can stand in the way of convictions for bogus or weak charges.