DOJ urges Biden judge not to toss anti-ICE protesters’ convictions

Federal prosecutors in Washington are battling court motions from three activists aimed at throwing out their guilty verdicts from an anti-deportation riot.Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pennell has scheduled a Nov. 24 hearing to review arguments about whether protesters Jac Archer, Justice Forral, and Bajun Mavalwalla should get acquittals or new trials, court records show. Jurors convicted them in May of conspiring to impede or injure federal officers over a June 2025 protest in Spokane that blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement from transporting detainees for nine hours.The larger mob at the protest damaged property, blocked exits for vehicles with their bodies, and made federal agents fear for their safety, prosecutors told the jury. Lawyers for the three who went to trial submitted lengthy filings over the summer disputing details about physical clashes with law enforcement, whether the trio’s actions proved a conspiracy, and whether jurors were properly instructed on the relevant law. Department of Justice responses to the three protesters, filed on Oct. 26, set the stage for another of several legal showdowns over efforts to stop left-wing activists’ subversion of ICE. Arguments that the Constitution protects the demonstrators’ actions fall flat, the Trump administration argued.“The simple fact that there were words spoken, or individuals assembled, does not mean the conduct was protected by the First Amendment,” one DOJ response to Archer said. “And the fact that there may have been a political motivation behind Defendant’s presence that day does not matter.”“Individuals may gather to protest or to express any matter of political opinion,” the DOJ response said. “They may do so loudly and frequently, if they so choose. But that is not what happened here, and not what this case is about.”When does rioting become a criminal “conspiracy?” The three convicts were among nine defendants originally indicted over the June 2025 protest, with the other six pleading guilty in documents that admitted a criminal conspiracy. One cooperating defendant’s plea agreement confessed details such as Forall helping her release air from the tires of a federal vehicle to keep it from moving and Archer physically blocking the vehicle’s path.Forral, Archer, and Mavalwalla all claimed there was no proof the three formed a conspiracy to break the law.No evidence existed that Forral and the confessing defendant made an agreement to deflate the tires, Forral’s team argued. It also did not violate the conspiracy law because it did not damage the tires and because they did not mean to injure officers, only impede them, according to Forral’s motion.Forral also said the trial was invalid because one U.S. attorney on the case resigned last year and complained to a local news outlet in May that the prosecution appeared political.“Defendant’s claims are solely based on the comments of a former DOJ employee to a newspaper journalist post-verdict who was not involved in the investigation, the grand jury proceedings, or the trial,” the DOJ told the court in response.Mavalwalla’s motion also claimed he “was never aggressive” with ICE officers, an assertion prosecutors disputed by discussing evidence of him giving an “elbow strike,” which jurors already received at trial. The defense claimed that in all alleged encounters, Mavalwalla was only trying to get away from federal agents who were actually the aggressors.“The Government argued that the Defendant used force against agents when the videos clearly showed the Defendant attempting to remove himself from the grasps of agents,” his motion said.Archer’s legal team accused prosecutors of confusing the jury, saying they told jurors that Archer’s “mere awareness of others’ conduct” amounted to a conspiracy. But prosecutors were barred from mentioning the first six defendants’ guilty pleas during the trial of the remaining three, so it is wrong to claim the trial was rigged against the trio, the DOJ said.“Here, [Archer] too was not able to present every single fact they may have wished to present,” prosecutors wrote. “But that does not mean those facts were admissible, and in light of the overall case and the applicable rules of evidence and criminal procedure, nothing about those rulings was such that a ‘serious miscarriage of justice occurred’ which warrants a new trial.”PALESTINE ACTION VANDALS RISK JAIL DEFYING SUBPOENAS AS DOJ SEEKS OVERSEAS COMRADEMavalwalla’s defense, echoing other activists’ sentiment, called his prosecution and verdict “political.”“Apparently, if you want truth and justice and a sense of fairness from the Department of Justice, you’ve come to the wrong place,” his motion said.