<\/p>\n
The Trump administration<\/span> is on a losing streak against some of its loudest critics, as federal cases targeting opponents of aggressive immigration enforcement fall apart in courts nationwide.<\/p>\n In the span of a week, prosecutors failed to bring convictions in two high-profile cases in Los Angeles federal court. In the first, a jury acquitted<\/a> Bobby Nu\u00f1ez, a tow-truck driver who hooked an ICE vehicle and was charged with stealing government property. In the second, a judge dismissed<\/a> the case against Carlitos Ricardo Parias, a TikToker who was facing assault and property damage charges after a confrontation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, due to concerns that officials had violated his civil rights. (In the October 21 confrontation, an ICE agent shot him<\/a>.)<\/p>\n \u201cThese arrests are a form of retaliation by the government,\u201d said Matthew Borden, an attorney representing protesters, journalists, and legal observers in a lawsuit<\/a> against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stemming from protests in Southern California over the past year. \u201cWhen you have a real judge and a real jury looking at the evidence, it just falls apart.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you have a real judge and a real jury looking at the evidence, it just falls apart.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n The two cases come on the heels of a spate of failed federal charges prosecutors filed against protesters in Chicago, including one in which Border Patrol agents shot Miramar Martinez during a roadside confrontation in October and later charged her with assault. In November, a protester in Washington D.C. was acquitted after a two-day trial stemming from on assault charges he faced for throwing a sandwich at a border patrol agent.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re moving at a pace that they\u2019re not used to, and they\u2019re not doing the legwork up front,\u201d said Christopher Parente, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago representing Martinez, whose case was dismissed last month.<\/p>\n Federal court is typically not a friendly place for defendants. U.S. Attorneys are known for being choosy about the cases they bring, so cases that make it to a grand jury for indictment are often much more thoroughly vetted than those that might be brought before a state court. And faced with stiff penalties if convicted at trial, the vast majority of defendants opt for a plea deal.<\/p>\n In the year leading up to September 30, according to numbers published by the federal judiciary September 30, 91 percent of cases\u2014 75,151 out of 82,042 in total \u2014 ended with a guilty plea, and less than two percent ended in a guilty verdict at trial. In the same period, just over six percent of cases ended without a conviction, including 5,336 dismissals and 192 acquittals at trial.<\/p>\n \u201cUsually, federal cases are built after long investigations, and then you indict,\u201d Parente told The Intercept. \u201cAnd this is kind of the opposite: It\u2019s just very quick decisions that are being made on the word of your Border Patrol agents. And if they\u2019re not credible \u2014 which in this case they weren\u2019t \u2014 that\u2019s going to cause huge problems.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cUsually, federal cases are built after long investigations, and then you indict. And this is kind of the opposite.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n The Trump administration appears to have upended that practice as it struggles to control the narrative surrounding its unpopular immigration crackdown. In higher-profile confrontations between protesters and federal agents amid aggressive immigration enforcement actions in blue cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C., federal officials have called defendants like Parias and Martinez \u201cdomestic terrorists\u201d while seeking lesser charges.<\/p>\n Time and again, their cases have fallen apart.<\/p>\n In Chicago, on November 3, a judge dismissed charges against Cole Sheridan<\/a>, a protester accused of attacking Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino after new video evidence undercut the government\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n Days later, prosecutors asked a judge to dismiss their case<\/a> against Martinez and her co-defendant, Anthony Ruiz, following the emergence of damning text messages by the agent who shot Martinez and other facts that might have damaged the state\u2019s case, Parente said.<\/p>\n That same day, in Washington D.C., a jury acquitted Sean Dunn, the man accused of throwing a sandwich at a Border Patrol agent, following a farcical two-day trial<\/a> in which the agent testified about feeling the impact through his tactical vest and smelling \u201cthe onions and mustard\u201d on his clothes.<\/p>\n The latest cases of Nu\u00f1ez and Parias in Los Angeles add to the pattern.<\/p>\n\n
\n