L.A. and D.C. Grand Juries: More Than One Way to Protest

By Mary Alice Miller
When ICE commenced its June sweep of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles, protesters hit the streets. Trump sent in 2,000 federalized National Guard Troops and 700 Marines, purportedly to protect a federal detention center and other buildings after Los Angeles was asked to assign local police to protect masked ICE agents.

Protesters were tear gassed during clashes with law enforcement. Cars were set on fire, stores were looted, and major roadways were blocked with cinder blocks and shopping carts, including near a Home Depot where undocumented immigrant day laborers were detained. The Los Angeles mayor issued a curfew.

During the siege there were numerous detentions in the Los Angeles garment district and outside Home Depot, including United States citizens caught Prominent labor leader David Huerta was among those arrested while protesting, charged with conspiracy to impede an officer.

The use of the military to do policing and law enforcement work is not allowed without a very specific exception: the invocation of the Insurrection Act.
The National Guard was not activated by Governor Gavin Newsom. Estimated costs of Trumps’ deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was approximately $120 million, according to Gov. Newsom.

Last week a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally instructed the National Guard to perform law enforcement duties – a violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act – during the anti-ICE protests. The judge ordered the 300 remaining National Guard personnel deployed in Los Angeles cannot be used to engage in law enforcement activities like conducting immigration raids or immigration arrests, and crowd or traffic control.

Days later, a federal appeals court judge temporarily lifted a judge’s order that limited the operations of National Guard troops that Trump activated in Los Angeles, permitting them to continue to protect federal buildings.

Citizens have watched all of this. They had no choice: the vivid images were on their nightly news.
Those called to grand jury service are beginning to make their displeasure heard.
In the aftermath of the Los Angeles protests against ICE, and Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines, several felony charges related to the anti-ICE immigration raid protests were dismissed or downgraded to misdemeanors. The few indictments that did stick involved people attacking federal agents with weapons.

It is rare for a grand jury to refuse an indictment. Prosecutors have sole control over evidence introduced to grand juries and can use their digression to persuade a grand jury to indict almost anyone. The person being charged is not allowed to have their attorney present during grand jury proceedings. In addition, grand jury proceedings are secret.
As New York Court of Appeals Chief Justice Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
Not anymore.

In the wake of protests in Los Angeles and the Trump administration takeover of law enforcement in the nation’s capitol, grand jury members in Washington, D.C. have begun to question cases brought by over-zealous prosecutors related to the National Guard.
One most notable case that went viral was an incident where former DOJ employee Sean Charles Dunn allegedly called a federal agent a fascist and threw a Subway sandwich at the officer. Dunn was arrested by 20 federal agents in riot gear for assaulting a federal officer. A grand jury returned a no-bill.

A woman recording video of the transfer of inmates into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents outside the city’s jail in July was subjected to three separate grand juries accusing her of assaulting a police officer. All three voted against indicting her.
In another case, a man was arrested on an assault charge by a U.S. Park Police officer with the assistance of National Guard members. A grand jury rejected an indictment against him.

In another arrest, Torez Riley, a Black man, was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon while he was on his way to a Trader Joe’s. Riley was stopped by law enforcement who searched his bag with no probable cause. After admonishment from Federal Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui over the unconstitutionality of the arrest, a federal prosecutor dropped the case.
Jeanine Pirro, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has instructed prosecutors to maximize criminal charges on street arrests.

Perhaps grand juries are acting as the conscience of the people.
Grand juries in Chicago, New York, and Baltimore might take note.