Attorneys for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District candidate Kat Abughazaleh and her five co-defendants sought a spring trial date during a Wednesday morning status hearing at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse.
In October, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed conspiracy charges against Abughazaleh and five others, including several Democratic politicians, for activities tied to a protest at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, Illinois, on Sept. 26. The filing alleges the defendants conspired to “interrupt, hinder, or impede” the activities of a federal law enforcement officer by surrounding his government vehicle.
In November, each defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Judge April Perry (Communication ’00, Pritzker ’03) did not set a specific trial date, but the defense counsel agreed to confer and move toward setting a court date in the spring. The attorneys pushed for a date as early as May and discussed a trial length of seven days. The trial would take place after the March 17 primary.
Abughazaleh’s attorney Joshua Herman said that the defense counsel would likely file to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds.
“Having this hanging over her head is a tremendous weight to be fighting on both fronts right now,” Herman told reporters , referencing both the case and Abughazaleh’s ongoing congressional campaign.
Earlier this month, chief of staff for Chicago’s 40th Ward alderperson and co-defendant Catherine Sharp suspended her campaign for Cook County Board to focus on her legal defense.
Within the last week, both sides have filed what Perry described as “a flurry of motions” — the first by the defendants seeking a bill of particulars, which would ask the government to clarify the boundaries and specifics of the alleged conspiracy.
The document explains there are distinct clauses in the conspiracy statute, but the indictment fails to specify which clause the prosecution alleges each defendant violated.
Additionally, the defense attorneys wrote that the indictment fails to describe a sufficient relationship between those charged to qualify them as part of a conspiracy, nor do the allegations say when the conspiracy began and ended.
The defense counsel also sought a protective order that would require the Department of Homeland Security and Broadview Police Department to maintain records related to the incidents such as body camera footage and surveillance video.
Perry said the government recently filed a protective order as well. A Jan. 27 filing by the federal prosecution proposes that certain categories of evidence be restricted to attorneys’ eyes only, while other materials would be designated for use solely within the case.
Terence Campbell (Pritzker ’95), who represents co-defendant and Abughazaleh deputy campaign manager Andre Martin, voiced concern about the prosecutors’ proposed order.
“This is clearly a case of public interest and public importance,” Campbell said. “This case involves public figures. And the issues that are relevant here include things that are political and are being talked about — should be talked about.”
Understanding federal law enforcement’s behavior is important given the last few weeks, Campbell emphasized, seeming to reference the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good by federal agents.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri H. Mecklenburg said she did not want body camera videos from Broadview officers available to the public on social media, adding that she was concerned about tainting the jury pool.
“I would like to try the case in the courtroom and not in the media,” she said.
In response to Mecklenburg’s claim that this was “a press case for the defense,” Oak Park trustee Brian Straw’s attorney Christopher Parente pointed to an Oct. 20 press release about the case issued by U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ office. The document quoted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and called the six co-defendants “conspirators.”
“Your indignation is noted for the record,” Perry said to Parente.
Perry agreed to enter an order to preserve video footage from Sept. 24 to 28 — two days prior to and two days after the alleged incident.
After the hearing, Herman said that “the crime is the agreement” for conspiracies, condemning the case as a “misuse” of the conspiracy statute against demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights.
According to Herman, the defense counsel believes the case will expose another instance of government overreach.
Given “everything that’s happening in our country right now with DHS,” he said, the defendants want to bring this case to trial sooner.
“If the agreement here is participating in parallel First Amendment activity, which the government suggests it is by calling them — the demonstrators — as the conspirators, we don’t see how that can be the law,” Herman said.
The attorneys wrote that “none of the Defendants are individually alleged to have caused any damage or injury to the Government Vehicle.” Parente reiterated this to reporters, saying that the government will acknowledge none of the six defendants did any of that damage at the protest.
According to Parente, other protestors dealt the damage. By this logic, he added, if someone were attending a protest and the person next to them threw a bottle, they would then be a co-conspirator too.
“What people in this district should be concerned about is if the U.S. Attorney’s Office is going to treat demonstrators who attend any kind of protest — forget ICE, it could be any protest in this district — if just by going to a protest, you are on the hook for what the person next to you does,” Parente said.
The next status hearing is scheduled at noon on Feb. 26.
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
