jury

The U.S. Justice Department failed to secure felony convictions against most of the 102 protesters arrested in Los Angeles and three other major cities last year on charges of assaulting federal authorities — a record far below the norm in federal assault prosecutions.

All of the dozen cases that made it to trial, mostly in L.A., ended in acquittal, mistrial or dismissal. Experts say that’s surprising for a department known for its ability to win at trial. The last three felony assault cases, in L.A. and Portland, Ore., will go to trial this fall.

The dismal record has raised questions about rushed investigations and aggressive charging tactics by prosecutors under pressure to show the Trump administration is cracking down on people who assault law enforcement. It comes as the Justice Department is facing broader setbacks in politically charged investigations, with grand juries repeatedly refusing to return indictments and trial juries granting acquittals.

“Prosecutors tend to win because they control what cases they pursue and they have a lot of resources and discretion,” said Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at the University of Washington.

The fact that the government failed to win any felony assault convictions at trial calls into question “whether or not these charges should have ever been brought in the first place,” she said.

Tracking the outcome of 167 arrests

The Associated Press’ analysis focused on arrests made during protests last summer and fall in L.A., Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C. — cities with significant protests where President Trump deployed the National Guard or tried to.

Then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said those who interfered with federal law enforcement would face “severe consequences.”

Most of the arrests — 102 — were for felony assault on a federal officer, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Of those cases, 41% were dismissed and 34% were pleaded down to misdemeanors. Ten people pleaded guilty to felony assault. Nine people got prison time.

Of those arrested on other charges, seven were sentenced to prison for offenses including arson and obstructing law enforcement. A few defendants have diversion agreements, meaning their cases will be dismissed if they demonstrate good behavior.

The AP’s analysis shows that the Justice Department’s record failed to meaningfully improve since December, when an initial assessment showed early struggles to prosecute people on the charges for which they were arrested.

The Justice Department said in a statement that federal prosecutors are right to prioritize cases against people accused of assaulting federal officers and that “each case is based on the facts.”

“If there are mitigating factors identified in a case, then prosecutors must also act appropriately to inform the court, and in some cases downgrade or drop charges,” the department said.

Prosecutors failed to persuade

It’s rare for federal prosecutors to lose at trial. In 2024, 82% of defendants charged with felony or misdemeanor assault were convicted at trial or with a plea deal, according to data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. AP’s analysis found that less than half of the protesters charged for either felony or misdemeanor assault were convicted.

In Portland, a jury couldn’t reach agreement on felony assault charges for Oriana Korol, who was playing clarinet in a marching band demonstrating outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement building last October when a scuffle involving officers broke out. Officers pepper-sprayed her and pushed her to the ground, where she struck one with her foot, according to court documents.

After a mistrial, prosecutors filed a reduced misdemeanor assault charge. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced Sept. 1 to time served and one year of supervised release.

Her attorneys wrote in a court filing that she “has accepted responsibility for the bad choices she made over a few seconds that caused no injury.”

Jonathan Caravello, a lecturer at California State Channel Islands, was acquitted of assault on a federal officer after a three-day trial. He was accused of throwing a tear gas canister deployed by immigration agents back at them while protesting a raid at a Camarillo cannabis farm.

Caravello said he was trying to get the canister away from the crowd. Videos showed he had tossed it high above officers’ heads and it landed far behind them. The jury acquitted Caravello after a quick deliberation.

“They’re trying to get a chilling effect out of these charges,” said Caravello, who turned down a misdemeanor plea deal.

Michael Rabbitt was among six co-defendants accused of felony conspiracy to impede a government vehicle from accessing an ICE facility near Chicago last September.

The vehicle slowly advanced despite being surrounded by protesters, leading some to put their hands on it, Rabbitt said.

After the government dismissed charges against two of the defendants, defense attorneys requested transcripts of the grand jury proceedings that led to the conspiracy indictment. The government eventually dropped the conspiracy charge and proceeded on misdemeanor counts of impeding a federal officer.

The judge later reviewed the unredacted transcripts and admonished prosecutors for improper behavior before the grand jury. The charges were dismissed days before trial.

Rabbitt said he was proud they fought the charges.

“This case was bigger than us,” he said. “I’m proud that we won this case, not just for us, but for protesters across the country.”

Many pleaded down

Though many federal criminal cases end in plea deals, some legal experts say it’s rare for felony assault to be pleaded down and may signal overcharging — filing a more severe initial charge so defendants will be more willing to plead guilty to one with a lighter sentence.

“I think when prosecutors bring charges ethically, they should be prepared to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The U.S. Attorney’s office overseeing Los Angeles said it brought the prosecutions in response to a “wave of violence against law enforcement officers who were doing their jobs.” It voluntarily dismissed charges against some defendants after further investigation, it said.

L.A. prosecutors have arrested three additional people for felony assault at immigration-related protests this year. One pleaded guilty to a felony and two to misdemeanors.

In Chicago, all but one of 19 felony assault cases were dismissed. The U.S. Attorney’s offices in the Northern District of Illinois, District of Columbia and Oregon did not respond to requests for comment.

Some DOJ convictions

A man accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at a hotel outside Los Angeles where federal authorities were staying was sentenced to five years in prison. Two others were sentenced to more than three years after pouring lighter fluid on a burning California Highway Patrol vehicle.

Federal judges sentenced eight people to decades in prison for their participation in a demonstration outside a detention center in Texas in July 2025 where a police officer was shot in the neck.

Three people were convicted at trial of conspiracy to impede or injure an officer for protesting outside a detention facility in Spokane, Wash., in June 2025. The Spokane and Texas cases were not included in AP’s analysis because they did not occur in one of the four cities where Trump deployed troops or attempted to.

Ding and Rush write for the Associated Press. Rush reported from Portland. AP writers Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

EXCLUSIVE: A contestant on The Jury has revealed just how difficult it was for the group to reach a verdict in the latest episode

A man who appeared on The Jury has opened up on ‘most difficult’ deliberation yet.

The contestant took part in the Channel 4 hit show and explained the extraordinary difficulty of reaching a verdict as the gripping series heads towards its final episode.

James, one of the members of the specially assembled jury, admitted the group faced an incredibly challenging time when they retired to deliberate over the case.

Speaking to The Daily Mirror about the experience, he said it was “probably one of the most challenging deliberations and claimed it was the most difficult the jurors had faced across the series so far.

James added, “I know for a fact out of 2 seasons previously, it was probably the most difficult of deliberations so far, and I suppose we really, really struggled to come to a decision.”

His comments come as The Jury reached the crucial stage of its four-part run, with the final episode airing on Channel 4 tonight (September 9).

The series has placed ordinary members of the public in the extraordinary position of having to decide the fate of two brothers accused of killing their stepfather.

Unlike a conventional documentary, the programme recreates a real-life murder trial using actors, with the jurors watching the evidence and arguments before being asked to reach their own verdict.

In the real case, the brothers were accused of killing their stepfather after years of alleged abuse and violence within the family home.

The Channel 4 series changed the defendants’ names, with the teenage brothers referred to as Daniel and his older brother as Luke.

The case presented the jurors with a particularly difficult question: could the brothers’ age, background, and claims of abuse alter how responsibility for the killing should be judged?

Reaching a conclusion was far from straightforward, and for James, it was even more difficult as he was voted as the jury’s foreperson.

He recalled the moment he was left feeling “really disrespected” when he was called out by a fellow juror. He said, “There was a moment where I went around all the jury members.

“I went around individually, and I asked people for their final decision, and when it came to be, quite literally, the last person to go, I was really thinking about what I was saying. And then another member of the jury, Phil, called me out, basically said, ‘Come on mate, we’ve not got all day, get a move on’”.

James added: “I just felt really disrespected because I had been voted in as the foreperson, so I had a responsibility to moderate a conversation, a really serious one of that, but also have my say at the same time.”

You can stream the new season of The Jury on Channel 4

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is demanding testimony before a Florida grand jury in an investigation aiming to establish an intelligence community conspiracy against President Trump, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

New subpoenas being issued to former government officials represent an escalation in the yearlong investigation as the Justice Department pursues a loosely defined theory that members of the intelligence community who scrutinized Trump over the last decade, including over Russian interference in the 2016 election, conspired against him and violated his rights.

Investigators in recent days contacted some defense lawyers for witnesses advising them of forthcoming grand jury subpoenas. It was not clear how many, as of Tuesday, had received a subpoena or were still waiting to receive one, and the identities of the witnesses receiving subpoenas were also not immediately clear. The people who confirmed the subpoenas spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a secretive grand jury investigation.

The investigation has focused in large part on the Trump-Russia probe

The contours of the conspiracy investigation aren’t fully known, but agents and prosecutors over the last several months have focused intensely on one of Trump’s chief grievances: the U.S. government response to Russian interference in 2016 and an intelligence community assessment that Moscow meddled on Trump’s behalf at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump, who spent much of his first term shadowed by an investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the election, has for years lashed out at the intelligence community finding and cast it as a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of his win.

Investigators searching for potential crimes in connection with the intelligence community response have conducted numerous voluntary interviews, but the subpoenas prepared for witnesses in recent days represent an apparent effort to lock down sworn testimony before a grand jury.

It remains unclear whether anyone will be charged or for what offense, though lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan have said they have been informed that he is a target as investigators examine whether he falsely testified to Congress — something he has repeatedly denied. The Justice Department last spring subpoenaed witnesses before a Washington grand jury as part of an investigation into Brennan but swiftly withdrew the subpoenas in favor of voluntary interviews.

The investigation is being run out of Florida, with the Justice Department in April bringing back into government service a top prosecutor from the Reagan administration, Joe diGenova, to serve as a counselor to the attorney general and help lead a team of agents and prosecutors.

DiGenova, who had previously asked then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to appoint him to the job and has openly and repeatedly claimed Trump was the victim of an intelligence community conspiracy, declined to comment Wednesday when reached by the Associated Press.

In an indication of the wide-ranging nature of the investigation, the AP reported last month that DiGenova’s team has sought interviews with law enforcement officials involved in the 2022 FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Fla., which recovered a trove of classified documents.

Concerns from defense lawyers about a ‘favored’ judge

Investigators have set up shop in Fort Pierce, Fla., the home court of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed jurist who repeatedly appeared skeptical of the classified documents case against him and ultimately dismissed it after concluding that the prosecutor who filed the charges was illegally appointed.

Lawyers for Brennan last year asked the chief judge of the federal court in Florida to prevent the investigation from being steered to Cannon, whom they described as a “favored” Trump judge. They have since sued the Trump administration, demanding a court order requiring prosecutors to preserve records from the investigation so that Brennan could challenge any potential prosecution of him as vindictive.

Trump came to office in 2017 under scrutiny from the intelligence and law enforcement community about whether his successful campaign had colluded with Russia, which stole politically damaging Democratic emails and orchestrated their release through WikiLeaks as part of a wide-ranging interference scheme.

The FBI and Justice Department investigated but found insufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, though investigators did find the campaign eagerly hoped to benefit from Moscow’s help.

Subsequent investigations by an inspector general and Justice Department prosecutors identified errors by agents who conducted the Russia probe but found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by senior law enforcement officials or an anti-Trump conspiracy like what prosecutors are now hoping to prove.

Deeply frustrated by those outcomes, Trump has amplified his demands for retribution, which the Justice Department heeded last year by directing that prosecutors utilize a grand jury. Last year, Bondi directed prosecutors to put evidence before a grand jury after the release of documents aimed at calling into question the legitimacy of the Trump-Russia inquiry.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

A brand new series of Channel 4’s The Jury started this week

The Jury viewers were left slamming the show after pointing out a major problem.

The Channel 4 programme returned for a new episode on Wednesday (September 2) following a group of ordinary people in a specially constructed jury room in a recreated murder trial.

This time, the jury is considering the case of two brothers who are accused of killing their stepfather. The brothers admit stabbing the man more than 69 times while he was asleep, with the jury having to decide whether the killing was an act of desperation or a calculated murder.

In the latest instalment, 14-year-old defendant Daniel took the stand and described the abusive home he grew up in. Meanwhile, CCTV and other evidence challenged key parts of the boys’ evidence, unsettling even the sympathetic jurors.

However, fans watching at home were left feeling disgruntled by one aspect of the show. They slammed how the jurors were able to break and talk about the case throughout the trial.

In real life though, jurors are not allowed to discuss the case this early in proceedings and can only share their thoughts once all the evidence has been presented from both prosecution and defence.

“I get that it’s a simulation but in my experience juries do not discuss the trial until the deliberation,” said one person on X. Someone else added: “This programme is utter rubbish!! It’s meant to be realistic, but you are not meant to discuss the case until the end.

“Certainly no talking while in court and the judge would have been right on to the juror talking.” A third chimed in: “Quite. It’s ridiculous and so annoying and I just can’t watch it.”

It comes after The Jury viewers were surprised to see such strong opinions emerging early on during the first episode this week. One viewer wrote on X: “Not seen any evidence yet and they already arguing #TheJuryC4.”

Another said: “Making up your mind before you’ve heard even a lick of evidence is insane but go off I guess.” A third questioned the make-up of the jury, asking: “Do they actually have level-headed people on the series this time? #TheJury.”

However, not everyone watching was critical of the programme. One viewer praised the return, writing: “I’m watching, it’s one of the best programmes on TV and with all the debate over jury trials, a fitting watch. #TheJury.”

The Jury airs at 9pm on Channel 4.

The Jury viewers were left baffled as tensions erupted among the jurors just minutes into the first episode of the new Channel 4 series.

The Jury took a turn minutes into the new series.

Viewers were left baffled just moments into the return of the Channel 4 series after tensions began to rise among the 12 jurors. The BAFTA-winning programme returned for a new series on Tuesday (September 1) night, once again putting a group of ordinary people in a specially constructed jury room in a recreated murder trial.

This time, the jury is considering the case of two brothers, one just 14 years old, who are accused of killing their stepfather. The brothers admit stabbing the man more than 69 times while he was asleep, with the jury having to decide whether the killing was an act of desperation or a calculated murder.

However, viewers were quick to comment on the reaction inside the jury room after the first trial and initial evidence had been presented. As the 12 contestants began discussing what they had heard, it quickly became clear that they were far from united in their views.

One juror, Jamie, admitted he was struggling to remain objective because of the age of one of the defendants. “This is mental,” he said. “My main aim is to be completely objective and then there’s a 14 year old put in front of me and it’s thrown it out of the window. I’ve got a boy that’s nearly f****** 14. As a dad, two young boys. I feel like it’s made it so much more challenging to be objective.”

He later described the evidence they had heard as a “massive bombshell”. Another juror questioned whether the group could fairly assess the case given that Daniel was only 14. “Do we feel that we can make a fair decision, because he’s so young?” they asked.

But not everyone believed Daniel’s age should influence their thinking. Kim insisted: “Age doesn’t come into it for me. Maybe it should but as it stands, I’m not looking at it as an age thing.”

Christopher, 20, disagreed and argued that Daniel’s age could be important when considering his responsibility for what happened. “I think it ought to a bit. I’m gonna be a really annoying sociology student right now,” he said. “But I think we do need to consider his age because I think that’s going to impact whether he’s in full control of his faculties.”

Jamie agreed with Christopher’s argument, pointing out that a teenager’s brain is still developing. “Their brain is still forming. So how can you say someone’s completely responsible as an adult when they’re not an adult?” he asked.

Kim, however, pushed back strongly. “So it justifies him killing him? No,” she replied. Jamie insisted the situation was more complicated than that. “But it’s not as simple as that. It’s not a simple thing,” he said.

Kim responded: “For you, maybe not, but for me, it is that simple. I am very black and white.” She went on to focus on the circumstances of the killing, arguing that the number of stab wounds made it difficult for her to separate Daniel’s age from the crime itself.

“The killing was nasty. The amount of times Daniel stabbed him. There was no justifying that,” she said. “Looking at him as a 14 year old, rather than the crime that he’s committed, I think it kind of clouds the judgement.”

Chloe, 23, also took a firm position on the issue. “Yeah. That’s overkill. You know what you’re doing after you’ve done it over 69 times,” she said. “If you’ve already done one big gash on the neck, you can’t do that to someone and expect them to be walking around perfectly the next day.”

She added that she believed the brothers intended to kill their stepfather and did not think Daniel’s age could be used as an excuse. “If they were adult enough to commit an adult crime, then surely they can take the punishment,” Chloe said.

The heated discussion came relatively early in the programme, with viewers watching the jurors begin to form opinions as the case started to unfold. Some viewers were surprised to see such strong opinions emerging while the group had only been presented with an early portion of the evidence.

One viewer wrote on X: “Not seen any evidence yet and they already arguing #TheJuryC4.” Another said: “Making up your mind before you’ve heard even a lick of evidence is insane but go off I guess.” A third questioned the make-up of the jury, asking: “Do they actually have level headed people on the series this time? #TheJury.”

However, not everyone watching was critical of the programme. One viewer praised the return, writing: “I’m watching, it’s one of the best programmes on TV and with all the debate over jury trials, a fitting watch. #TheJury.”

As the first episode continued, the jurors were presented with further information about the case, giving them more evidence to consider as they attempted to establish exactly what had happened.

You can stream the new season of The Jury on Channel 4

Sept. 1 (UPI) — A North Carolina grand jury has indicted a 17-year-old girl as an adult on charges of murder stemming from allegations that she aided and abetted two other teens who killed three people in a hate-filled attack on a San Diego mosque before taking their own lives.

Caleb Vazquez, 18, and Cain Clark, 17, are alleged to have shot and killed three people, including a security guard, at the Islamic Center of San Diego in California on May 18. Their bodies were found dead from apparent self-inflicted gunshots in a car parked near the scene.

On Monday, Forsyth County District Attorney Jim O’Neil told reporters during a press conference that a 17-year-old girl was arrested last week in North Carolina and that a grand jury indicted her on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, on allegations that she livestreamed the attack, disseminated the recording afterward and released the manifesto the attackers authored to justify their crime.

Court documents identified the suspect as 17-year-old Sarah Lindsey Santiago.

“Today’s indictment sends a clear message: physical distance from an attack does not place someone beyond accountability for the role they allegedly played in making it happen,” Special Agent in Charge Mark Remily of the FBI San Diego Field Office said in a statement.

“In today’s threat environment, individuals may believe they can encourage or facilitate acts of violence from hundreds of miles away without facing consequences. This case demonstrates that law enforcement will aggressively investigate those connections and pursue accountability wherever the evidence leads, including when juveniles are involved.”

According to the indictment, she is also alleged to have purchased a “Sonnenrad” patch for Vazquez, which he wore during the attack. According to the advocacy organization Anti-Defamation League, the Sonnenrad, which translates to “Black Sun,” is a symbol associated with White supremacy and was adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s.

The court document states that the conspiracy charge stems from allegations that she, Clark and Vazquez planned to murder worshipers at the Islamic Center of San Diego but also worshipers at Kehilat Ariel Messianic Synagogue, which is also in San Diego, and Black students at an unnamed public high school.

O’Neil, in the press conference, said that aiding-and-abetting charges in North Carolina come with the same penalties as if the accused had perpetrated the crime.

“So, she didn’t have to be in California. She’s in our jurisdiction. And today, a grand jury indicted her and held her responsible for her actions,” he said.

According to police, the shooting occurred at about 11:42 a.m. on May 18.

Shortly before, at about 9:40 a.m. that morning, San Diego police received a call from Clark’s mother reporting her son was suicidal and that several of her weapons and her vehicle were missing. Her son was with a companion, both dressed in camouflage, she said.

San Diego police were working to locate the teens when the first calls of the shooting at the mosque came in.

The suspects parked in the Islamic Center’s parking lot, ran past security and opened fire, hitting 51-year-old Amin Abdullah, who exchanged gunfire, wounding Clark. Abdullah has been heralded as a hero who saved lives by initiating lockdown protocols before dying from his injuries. O’Neil said there were 140 children on the premises at the time of the shooting.

The two suspects entered the building, but then exited through the back door and into the parking lot, where they encountered Mansour Kazhia, 78, and Nadir Awad, 57, whom they shot and killed.

The suspects fled the scene in their vehicle, from which they shot at a gardener who was uninjured, before dying by suicide.

Searches of residences associated with the suspects uncovered more than 30 guns and a crossbow, including rifles, along with ammunition, tactical gear and electronics.

“There exists in our world an underground subculture. It’s an echo chamber of intense hate against different cultures and religions. Cain and Vasquez, by what is contained in their manifesto, seemed to hate everyone, regardless of skin color, politics, religion or ethnicity,” he said.

“And this underground subculture of hate, they listen to each other, they talk to each other in encoded platforms. It radicalizes one another to the point where they carry out these horrific crimes of violence and murder.”