Now, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has dismissed three separate felony cases against demonstrators arrested at protests in L.A. This decision brings attention to egregious disparities in the data law enforcement agencies have reported. Five people were originally charged with serious felony charges, including three counts of assaulting officers. These criminal charges had the potential to lead to sentences of 20 years. With at least eight felonies dismissed, that was the pathetic truth—a perplexing and frustrating trend. Eyewitness testimony and testimony from law enforcement officers have been notoriously unreliable and inaccurate.
U.S. Attorney Essayli had the audacity to go further and publicize mugshots. Thus far, he has failed to address the dropping of these serious charges. The Justice Department announced that they would be downgrading most of these felony charges to misdemeanors. This calls into serious question the integrity of the accusations leveled against the protesters, and indeed the overall conduct of the officers.
Discrepancies in Law Enforcement Reports
Court records show that most of the charges dismissed had been based almost entirely on misleading, and sometimes simply wrong, reports produced by police. For instance, a Border Patrol agent named Eduardo Mejorado provided incorrect testimony regarding the sequence of events during the protests. The Justice Department has conceded these falsehoods, which means that they may have a significant impact on current prosecutions of protesters. By admitting to this, they completely discredit the testimonies they brought into the court.
Additionally, one recent case of the whistleblower with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent, serves to highlight the differences. One agent alleged that a protester pushed an officer during a fracas. As the video footage contradicted that narrative, it was clear that the officer had in fact violently shoved the protester. These kinds of misrepresentations in official narratives have led prosecutors to drop or be forced to re-evaluate their charges against demonstrators.
“Our office will continue working unapologetically to charge all those who assault our agents or impede our federal investigations.” – Ciaran McEvoy
This dismissal of the majority of cases has not escaped the attention of practitioners and activists. Carley Palmer, PNHP legal analyst, spoke specifically to the long-term impact that these charges can have. She pointed out that even if they are dismissed, they can remain on a person’s record forever. This reality makes it all the more imperative that prosecutors recognize the immense power they have in these types of cases.
Ongoing Legal Challenges and High-Profile Cases
Though many of these felony charges have been dismissed, the cases of all LA protesters are not yet settled. Since June, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has kept 18 active cases against individuals charged with other alleged criminal conduct stemming from protests. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, one of the few remaining active cases that have not been dismissed—brought by fiery California union leader David Huerta—has been accepted. His case is illustrative of the exceptions, nuances, and amplification that often exist even within the wider scope of cases and legal actions taken against demonstrators.
Jacob Terrazas faced allegations of felony assault after DHS claimed he was “one of several individuals … actively throwing hard objects [at officers]” during protests in Paramount. As of press time, Gisselle Medina had her felony charges for “conspiracy to impede an officer” dropped. She is still facing one misdemeanor charge for being an “accessory” to a “violent assault.” These continued legal battles highlight the disparity in treatment of unlike cases in the same protest setting.
“Federal charges are very serious and have real implications for people’s lives.” – Carley Palmer
As civil rights advocates, we are profoundly troubled by the inequities in the handling of these cases. They suggest that mistakes in police narratives may result in wrongful convictions, and the impact on the individuals involved can be devastating. They argue that no case ever should be filed unless it would withstand a rigorous and appropriate standard of scrutiny to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Law Enforcement’s Response to Rising Tensions
Given these changes, law enforcement leaders have expressed alarm about increasing risk of violence toward police and from police toward demonstrators. Jaime Ruiz, a spokesperson for law enforcement, stated, “Our officers are facing a surge in assaults and attacks against them as they put their lives on the line to enforce our nation’s laws.” Law enforcement agencies are in fierce support of tough penalties. In addition, they want to make sure that it is easier to hold accountable those who allegedly obstruct or assault police officers during protests.
Kristi Noem’s statement, relayed by Ruiz, emphasized a zero-tolerance policy towards any obstruction or assault on law enforcement: “If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” This focus on harsh punishment reveals the administration’s priorities in quelling the increasing civil disobedience.
“This Department of Justice is proud of Bill, and he has my complete support as he continues working to protect Californians and Make America Safe Again.” – Pam Bondi
As such, law enforcement officials have issued misleading and incendiary claims. Those recent dismissals raise a critical question of whether justice is being served equitably across these cases. Testaments and police technical reports outline the grim diversity gap. This tragic incident underscores the immediate need for greater accountability for law enforcement abuses of protesters.