Conversation
-
The Broadview 6 Were Selectively Prosecuted
source
As the Broadview 6 exonerees have laid out in a number of ways, the underlying dispute that led to the collapse of their case was their request for evidence to support a selective and vindictive prosecution claim, primarily based off the Trump Administration’s overt animus towards Kat Abughazaleh. Abughazaleh twice (one, two) laid that out. Sheri Mecklenburg responded by saying then-defendants were not entitled to the things that would show Trump’s role in the prosecution. Then defendants laid it out in a motion for discovery, and William Hogan responded by claiming such communications did not exist.Judge April Perry’s reliance on Hogan’s claim has been the primary focus of questions about candor so far (and will presumably be the focus of her request for more information, which she ordered at Thursday’s hearing).
The defendants have expressly predicated their theory of vindictive and selective prosecution on external forces having some type of impact on the Chicago-based prosecutors. They stated in writing repeatedly that they are not alleging any animus by the line AUSAs or the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office. To the end, the prosecutors agreed to provide evidence of external forces communicating with the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office about this case, and they have now said there is no such evidence. There are no White House communications, there are no main justice communications, and I quote, There are no communications of any nature from, to, or with anyone outside of the U.S. Attorney’s Office other than local FBI investigators assigned to the case regarding any investigatory or charging decisions.
But Judge Perry also made this point about why a selective prosecution claim — a claim based on the fact that prominent Democratic officials were the only ones who had been at the September 26 Broadview protests charged — would fail: Because both the people who were charged and those who were not shared the same views.
To the extent the defendants’ theory is they were charged because of their political beliefs, everyone on the scene seems to have had the same political beliefs. To the extent they believe they were charged based on the exercising of their First Amendment rights, everyone on the scene seems to have been exercising the same political opinions and the same type of speech. So to the extent that there were some of those people who were uncharged, that is not evidence that your clients were selected because of their political beliefs or their First Amendment speech.
There’s still an argument that Abughazaleh (and through her, everyone else) was only charged because she spoke out against the ICE goon who drove into her. But that also assumes the moment of selection came in the first decision to charge.
We now know there was a second prosecutorial decision: Andrew Boutros’ decision, after the case was no-billed on October 9 last year, to try twice more — to keep trying until Kat Abughazaleh was charged in a felony conspiracy. DOJ has claimed that (aside from the September 27 meeting at which a video that is almost certainly Abughazaleh’s was shown) it didn’t speak to Main DOJ about the case until they had decided to charge it. They have not said — though exonerees have asked — whether there were communications after it was no-billed, whether that was why Boutros ordered Mecklenburg to get a rush grand jury transcript that she sent to Boutros but which he pinky swears he never read.
What abundant evidence shows is that at that point, Boutros treated the Broadview 6 selectively.
As I noted here, even though Boutros said the question of selective and vindictive prosecution was mooted by the dismissal, he spent five pages in his response addressing the topic. As part of it, he argued that no matter whether you think this case sucks, he had publicly and “vigorously prosecut[ed] those who seek to obstruct or impede federal employees and property.”
Furthermore, whatever one’s views about the filing of charges in this case, the United States Attorney appeared in Court and offered his detailed rationale for authorizing the charges, including his legal thinking on enforcement of § 111 in this and future cases, including where other federal officials and employees might be victims. R. 187 at 57-58.13 The United States Attorney’s public position on vigorously prosecuting those who seek to obstruct or impede federal employees and property was well established when charges were filed, as evidenced by the many criminal cases the U.S. Attorney’s Office has brought involving those federal interests, and where applicable, his public comments in connection with those cases, and in particular, his October 4, 2025, statement. That view was shared by seven federal law enforcement leaders, including the then-Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, the leading investigative agency on this prosecution, all of whom joined the United States Attorney in issuing the October 4 statement.
13 The United States Attorney’s Office has charged—both before and after former Defendants’ case— numerous instances of alleged harm to federal law enforcement officers and employees, federal property, and other federal interests. See, e.g., United States v. Brzowski, No. 1:25-cr-589 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2025) (forging judges’ signatures); United States v. Santoyo, No. 1:25-cr-422 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2025) (dangerous weapon possession after standoff in federal courthouse); United States v. Lake, No. 1:26-cr-221 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2026) (felon in possession of firearm in Dirksen building); United States v. Reyes, No. 1:26-cr248 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2026) (running car into federal agent’s car); United States v. Gomez, No. 1:25-cr735 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2025) (unlawfully possessing a firearm and shooting it near federal law enforcement officer).
To substantiate that, a footnote describes a case from July 2025 (before ICE invaded), a case charged on September 18, 2025 about conduct dating to 2023, a case involving a shooting while CBP officers were present charged in November 2025, and two cases charged in 2025 (one of which — Reyes — pertains to events that occurred during the ICE invasion in 2025). Just two of these, Reyes and Gomez, involve conduct alleging resisting an ICE or CBP goon during the invasion last fall.
What Boutros doesn’t mention are the 25 other people charged during that period. For good reason! Virtually all of those cases also fell apart, just like the Broadview 6 case did.
But they fell apart differently than Broadview 6. And that’s where the decision after October 9, the decision to keep trying to indict it, should come under scrutiny. On September 27, the same day (we belatedly learned) Main DOJ and Chicago and one other US Attorney’s office were discussing — among other things — the protest from the day before, Greg Bovino rolled into Broadview and caused a “shitshow,” leading to what DHS claimed were arrests of 11 people. Only five of those people were charged.
But by October 9, four of those cases had been dismissed, including the charges against Ray Collins and Jocelyne Robledo, who were no-billed on October 7 (by a Tuesday grand jury, so a different one than the one that indicted the Broadview 6), and Hubert Mazur, who was initially charged for being pushed by a Border Patrol Officer after which both he and the Border Patrol Officer fell to the ground.
On November 20, Boutros dismissed the last of those cases after the defendant threatened to call Greg Bovino as a witness. All five cases charged based on conduct the day after the Broadview 6 protest fell apart.
At a hearing on October 8 after the government moved to dismiss the case against Mazur — the day before Sheri Mecklenburg first tried to indict the Broadview 6 for contact initiated, as with Mazur, by the DHS goon — DOJ explained that once they reviewed more bodyworn camera footage of what happened, they decided not to charge Mazur with assault for being pushed by a DHS goon.
The government provided additional basis for its motion, noting that the government’s review, after defendant’s arrest, of additional body-worn camera video evidence caused the government to decide not to file an information in this case, in which the compliant charged the case as a misdemeanor.
In his order dismissing that last charge from September 27, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes (who had been on duty on September 27) described how all five cases charged that day fell apart.
Examining more closely the five September 27 Broadview criminal arrest cases, all of which came before the undersigned magistrate judge, the Court notes the following facts:
1) The initial complaints charged four (Collins, Robledo, Ivery, and Briggs) of the foregoing five persons with felony violations of Section 111(a). Only the complaint against Mazur was filed as a misdemeanor.
2) With today’s dismissal of the Briggs criminal information, none of these cases remains pending today – all have been dismissed.
3) As the docket entries reflect in all five of the cases, the undersigned magistrate judge obtained a sworn statement from the affiants in each affidavit, at the time of complaint issuance, that not only were the affidavit allegations true, but that video evidence of the encounters existed, that the affiants had reviewed the video evidence, and that the video evidence corroborated the version of events set forth in the affidavits. Mazur (D.E. 11); Collins/Robledo (D.E. 26); Ivery (D.E. 13); and Briggs (D.E. 14).
[snip]
Importantly, nothing in this order should be construed as scolding the government for dismissing in these cases. Dismissing appears to be the responsible thing for the government to have done, in light of the government’s judgment and discretion. But the Court cannot help but note just how unusual and possibly unprecedented it is for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district to charge so hastily that it either could not obtain the indictment in the grand jury or was forced to dismiss upon a conclusion that the case is not provable, in repeated cases of a similar nature. Federal arrest brings federal detention, even for a short time. It brings the need to obtain counsel, to appear at court hearings, to answer the charges (as Briggs did in this case, pleading not guilty), and to prepare for trial (as Briggs also has had to do in this case). Being charged with a federal felony, even if it is later reduced to a misdemeanor, is no walk in the park.
In the very same period where Boutros ordered Sheri Mecklenburg to try three times to charge Kat Abughazaleh and others with a felony, he was dismissing cases, based in part on additional video review or after the grand jury refused to indict. Importantly, in those other cases, DOJ did the additional BWC review.
Yet in the Broadview 6 case, when grand jurors asked what the local cops had seen on October 16, Mecklenburg didn’t chase such footage down. She instead told them, falsely, that there were no cops present.
GRAND JUROR: Who took the videos? What’s the source of these videos?
MS. MECKLENBURG: This video is from Ms. Abagazala’s social media.
MR. SKIBA: Yeah. So some were like a Twitter, an Instagram. Some were, I believe, You Tube. This was all civilians taking photos.
MS. MECKLENBURG: Yeah. No law enforcement was out there, so they didn’t take any video.
Once Mecklenburg did chase down that video, it showed that the people she had charged with felony conspiracy had walked away after a DHS goon, as happened with Mazur and many others, initiated contact. That’s likely what led DOJ to drop the charges against Kat Sharp and Joselyn Walsh in March.
In any case, by the time Mecklenburg falsely claimed there were no cops and therefore no bodyworn footage, Boutros had already made that second decision, to keep trying for that felony.
In every other case, Boutros reviewed a shitty claim and dropped it.
In this case — the one targeting someone the White House had targeted personally — he did not.
In the hearing on Thursday, Judge Perry asked when the communications with Main DOJ about the case transpired. Nate Whalen, attempting to stave off further investigation, stonewalled.
U.S. District Judge questions the feds about outside communications about the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Whalen quibbles on whether there are relevant communications, which prompts many smiles on the defense side of the courtroom. Defendants had pressed for communications with the White House and Justice Department headquarters.
Whalen indicates there were communications outside the U.S. attorney’s office after a charging decision was made.
Perry tries to pin down when that was. Whalen tells her the feds tried to clarify that in a brief, and Perry’s eyes go wide. She also tells Whalen that a footnote he’s been pointing to “is a mess.”
Judge Perry is going to give the Feds questions she demands they answer under oath, under penalty of perjury. Ostensibly, she will use them to decide whether to appoint a prosecutor who could put them in jail — but she may learn enough to hold them in criminal contempt right there.
And one of those questions will likely pertain to why the Broadview 6 case got treated differently, last fall, than all the other frivolous cases that Boutros was willing to dismiss within days.
The post The Broadview 6 Were Selectively Prosecuted appeared first on emptywheel.