LOS ANGELES — Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have taken a hard line against alleged violence at protests, charging nearly 100 protesters since June in cases that could result in long prison sentences. But a fifth of those cases have been dismissed or resulted in acquittals in what some former federal prosecutors and free speech advocates say is a rare rebuke of the U.S. attorney’s office’s mission and credibility.
After tens of thousands of people flooded the streets in June and October during “No Kings” protests against the Trump administration, at least 20 of 97 federal cases filed against Los Angeles protesters since June have failed in court, according to records provided to NBC News by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. Eighteen of those cases were dismissed and two ended in acquittals. Experts weren’t able to provide an average number of cases but said the recent rate of unsuccessful ones seemed high.
Last week, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced charges against 12 defendants stemming from June 8 protests across Southern California. The defendants were charged in a single complaint with obstructing, impeding and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder, according to the Department of Justice.
NBC News spoke with four former federal prosecutors who all said that in their experience, protest cases on the federal level were not common before this year. Instead, prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office typically focus on high-level crimes such as human and drug trafficking, corruption and white-collar offenses.
Summer Lacey, who served as a federal public defender in Los Angeles from 2014 to 2018, said her team never came across such high numbers of federal charges against protesters. Those cases were usually left to local district attorneys.
L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has charged 42 people in protest-related cases since June, according to his office. NBC News asked the district attorney’s office how many of these cases have been dismissed or resulted in acquittal but did not receive an immediate reply.
“What we’re seeing is that when these cases are scrutinized, so many of them are falling apart,” said Lacey, who is now an attorney with the ACLU’s Southern California chapter. “There isn’t an evidentiary base to support it, but people are being put through the process.”
Across the nation, the Trump administration has used increasingly hostile language to describe protesters, sometimes calling them “domestic terrorists” and “rioters,” while characterizing cities like Portland, Oregon, and Chicago as “war-ravaged” and a “war zone.” Yet firsthand accounts from those cities paint a very different picture.
Some former federal prosecutors say the discrepancies in how the Trump administration is describing protest behavior has created a credibility problem for current prosecutors, who are increasingly facing skeptical juries and judges. One said that is happening not just in Los Angeles but also in cities like Chicago and Portland, where protests and arrests continue.
“People want federal prosecutors to be thoughtful and careful as to how they use their discretion,” said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and a current law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. “It takes a long time to regain the public’s confidence, and the presumption of credibility is weakening.”
On Tuesday, federal prosecutors in Illinois filed a motion to dismiss a case against an Oak Park resident who was accused of shoving a border agent during an Oct. 3 protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility near Chicago. Cole Sheridan was charged with assaulting, impeding or resisting a federal agent.
Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain appeared skeptical of the federal government’s case during a recent hearing, according to local media reports. Arguments largely hinged on testimony provided by U.S. Border Patrol boss Gregory Bovino, who was involved in Sheridan’s arrest but testified that he was not wearing body cameras at the time of the skirmish.
“This is part of a larger political narrative and discussion as opposed to really being about doing anything to enhance or increase public safety,” said Ed Yohnka, director of communications and public policy at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which was not involved in the Sheridan case.
“This administration clearly believes that anybody who protests against them is an enemy that has to be punished,” he added.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago did not return a request for comment.
“We’re seeing grand juries reject those cases, or seeing those cases being dismissed,” said Cristine DeBerry, a former federal prosecutor who is now with the nonprofit watchdog Prosecutors Alliance, which advocates for criminal justice reform. “They’re weak at best, and that there’s very little evidence to support what the federal government is trying to do.”
Federal prosecutors have been facing an uphill battle in Los Angeles as charges continue to be dropped against protesters.
Last month, assault charges were dismissed against a protester who was accused of intentionally hitting a federal officer during an October protest outside an immigration detention facility.
But defense lawyers for Ashleigh Brown argued that prosecutors’ account was inaccurate. According to court filings, Brown was followed to her car by two federal officers who attempted to block her from driving away. Brown’s lawyers argued that the federal government failed to disclose a history of assault and excessive force by one of the officers who was allegedly attacked by Brown, according to court documents provided to NBC News.
Her case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning new charges cannot be brought against her for the same incident.
In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, said, “First Amendment protects peaceful protest. Violence — including violence against law enforcement and property — is not constitutionally protected.”
“There has been an incredible amount of violence directed at federal officers and property in what has been the largest immigration enforcement action in decades,” Ciaran McEvoy wrote in the statement. “That must be factored in.”
In the first cases brought against protesters following the June 8 No Kings protests, seven of nine assault and impeding cases were dismissed, according to court documents.
DHS agents accused protesters of shoving or assaulting law enforcement officers, but footage presented in court appeared to show the opposite, which led to at least one acquittal.
“The challenge we have is we don’t have a federal government that is playing by the normal rules,” DeBerry said. “We are not supposed to bring a case you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But they are filing cases they know they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
