The old saying is that grand juries would "indict a ham sandwich." That quote, attributed to New York Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler in the 1980s, might have to be revisited — at least with regard to prosecutions against Angelenos accused of various crimes while protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
According to the L.A. Times, only seven of the 38 protest-related federal felonies charged in the last couple of months have received indictments. According to a review by the Guardian, at least eight charges have already been dismissed. Some of the dismissals were due to federal agents offering false or misleading statements.
An indictment is only the first step in a criminal case. In an indictment, prosecutors need only show that there is probable cause to pursue the charges. Should any case go to trial, prosecutors must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard.
Under the Speedy Trial Act, prosecutors must indict defendants within 30 days of their arrest or the service of a summons. There are exceptions and caveats, but generally, the failure to obtain an indictment shortly after an arrest is not a good sign for the prosecution's case.
Misleading Statements and Insufficient Evidence
A review of court documents by the Guardian reveals that potentially misleading agent statements were involved in dismissing five cases against protestors arrested by ICE. For example, in one case, the defendant was accused of pushing an ICE agent, but video footage revealed the opposite: the agent was the one who aggressively pushed the defendant.
In another case, ICE agents alleged that a 4'11" woman assaulted a federal officer. According to the woman's attorney, her client was run down by masked men in plainclothes. She used a work bag to shield herself, fearing she was being kidnapped. After requesting video footage and eyewitness statements, federal prosecutors dropped the case.
These cases are a sign of the difficulty federal prosecutors in L.A. are having executing on the new directives by the Trump-appointed chief federal prosecutor for the district.
The U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California
L.A.'s newly appointed chief federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, was recently accused of forcing senior prosecutors to bring cases that align with MAGA policies against their recommendations and without sufficient evidence.
This has led to high staff turnover. He is alleged to have screamed at prosecutors within earshot of grand juries and to have forced prosecutors to reconvene grand juries when the outcome was not what he desired.
Like U.S. Attorney Alina Habba in New Jersey, the Trump administration appointed Essayli for 120 days in April. As in Habba's case, U.S. district court judges subsequently declined to appoint him indefinitely. However, the Trump administration invoked the Vacancies Reform Act to extend his tenure for an additional 210 days, despite lacking support from L.A.'s judges and career prosecutors. The Trump administration has used this tactic with other federal prosecutors as well, such as Nevada's Sigal Chattah.
Essayli is a former California state lawmaker.
As the DOJ rapidly transforms under the second Trump administration, whether similar prosecutions against protestors will continue is worth watching.
Related Resources
- DOJ Investigated Arresting Minnesota Judges, Lawyers for Remote Hearings (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- When Do Federal Agents Need to Identify Themselves? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- The Battle for the New Jersey US Attorney Position Is Over, at Least for the Next 210 Days (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
