Nine defendants convicted on charges related to a nonfatal July 4 shooting of a police officer outside the Prairieland immigration detention center are trying to overturn their jury verdicts and request a new trial.
In motions filed Friday, defense attorneys argued in part the government failed to prove core elements of each charge against the defendants and it failed to enter and preserve certain pieces of evidence. One attorney alleged juror misconduct and irregularities during deliberations that compromised the verdict.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman oversaw the trial and will rule on the motions.
The Fort Worth federal jury convicted the defendants on a range of charges in connection with the shooting, including rioting, providing material support to terrorists, using explosives and concealing documents.
Prosecutors say the shooting was a planned ambush on the ICE detention center motivated by the defendants鈥� anarchist, socialist, anti-government 鈥渁ntifa鈥� beliefs. The defendants and their attorneys have argued the night of July 4 was meant to be a noise demonstration with fireworks in support of those inside the detention center, and no one intended violence.
Blake Burns, an attorney for Elizabeth Soto, said during his closing argument that the government was attempting to send protesters to prison as terrorists. Harmony Schuerman, Elizabeth Soto鈥檚 other attorney, echoed that sentiment in an email to 四虎影院 Monday.
鈥淚 believe the verdict may have a chilling effect on 1st amendment activity, including protests, and the precedent this case will have, if allowed to stand, will open the door to future prosecutions of equally innocent citizens,鈥� she said.
Motions for acquittal and a new trial are typical in criminal cases and the first step in crafting an appeal 鈥� which Schuerman and other defense attorneys say they plan to do. The appeals process can't begin until after Pittman sentences the defendants in June.
The motions largely restate arguments defense attorneys made during trial. The gunman, Benjamin Song, was convicted on one count of attempted murder for shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross. Song's attorney Phillip Hayes has argued Song fired at the ground, not at Gross, therefore Song didn't intend to kill.
As evidence, Hayes pointed to the lone bullet preserved from the scene as well as closed circuit TV footage of dust clouds rising immediately after the shooting.
"The evidence presented at trial was that the period of time of the shooting in this case that (led) to Lt. Gross being shot, took place in approximately one second of time," Hayes wrote in one . "It defies common sense that an individual can shoot into the ground, continue to fire, and within a second change his aim to intentionally fire at an individual with the intent to murder."
It was revealed for the first time through Gross' testimony during trial that the officer drew his weapon upon arriving at Prairieland. Upon a government motion, Pittman blocked the defense from arguing Song fired in self-defense or in defense of another defendant nearby.
But in a separate Friday, Benjamin Song's father and attorney Tailim Song argued prosecutors failed to disclose that Gross drew his weapon first. That, he argued, violates precedent set by the Supreme Court requiring prosecutors to hand over all evidence that could clear a defendant of guilt.
Department of Justice officials have touted the case as being the first conviction of members of 鈥渁ntifa,鈥� short for anti-fascist. The government has argued in and out of court that antifa is a militant enterprise that operates in cells composed of members. Defense attorneys argue antifa is an ideology, not an organization of which someone can be a member.
Maricela Rueda was convicted of asking her husband Daniel Sanchez Estrada, another defendant, to conceal a box of what the government called insurrectionary materials in a phone call from jail. MarQuetta Clayton, Rueda鈥檚 attorney, argued prosecutors introduced antifa evidence and framed it as a dangerous movement, but the evidence was not tied to any of Rueda鈥檚 conduct.
鈥淎t one point, the Court itself recognized that the case did not depend on whether the group was labeled 鈥楢ntifa鈥� or something else,鈥� Clayton wrote in her , referencing a question Pittman asked prosecutors about whether arguments related to antifa were necessary for jurors to consider in their deliberations.
鈥淵et the trial was saturated with evidence designed to evoke fear, political bias, and guilt by association,鈥� Clayton added.
Christopher Tolbert, Savanna Batten鈥檚 attorney, alleged in a that 鈥渁 loud and sustained disturbance鈥� came from the jury room area shortly during deliberations after a lunch break. That鈥檚 according to members of the public waiting outside the courtroom, Tolbert wrote.
He argued this calls into question whether any jurors were threatened or coerced, or whether there was external influence on their decision.
鈥淎 verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror, free from coercion, intimidation, or undue pressure,鈥� Tolbert wrote. 鈥淲here jurors are shouting, arguing, and potentially intimidating one another, the reliability of the deliberative process is fundamentally compromised.鈥�
The government hasn鈥檛 filed a response to the motions as of Monday. 四虎影院 has reached out to the U.S. Attorney鈥檚 Office for the Northern District of Texas for comment and will update this story with any response.
Dylan Duke is 四虎影院's Breaking News Reporter. Got a tip? Email Dylan Duke at dduke@kera.org.
四虎影院 is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
