Woman Acquitted of Assaulting FBI Agent After 3 Grand Juries Declined To Indict
Grand juries have declined to indict numerous times when Trump's prosecutors have brought excessive charges.

In August, President Donald Trump took over the police force in Washington, D.C., and flooded the city with officers from various federal agencies. As part of this show of force, federal agents arrested hundreds of people, while prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia—led by interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro—seemingly intended to throw the book at them, whether or not the punishment actually fit the crime.
This week, one of the administration's more high-profile cases crashed and burned at trial.
In July, according to a charging document, D.C. resident Sydney Reid filmed with her phone as agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took two people into custody from the city jail. When one ICE officer told Reid to move back, she "continued to move closer to the officers and continued to record the arrest." When she didn't reply to further commands, an officer pushed her against the wall, and FBI Agent Eugenia Bates stepped in to assist as Reid "was flailing her arms and kicking and had to be pinned against a cement wall." During the scuffle, the indictment claims Reid "forcefully pushed [Bates'] hand against the cement wall" and "caused lacerations," and it includes a picture of her hand with two red marks.
Reid was arrested for "assaulting, resisting, or impeding" federal officers, a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison. But when prosecutors presented the case, a grand jury declined to indict—not once or even twice, but three separate times.
This is not unique to Reid: In August, the same month, prosecutors also failed to secure a grand jury indictment against Sean Dunn, the Department of Justice employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer stationed in D.C. In fact, within three weeks of Trump's D.C. takeover, grand juries declined to return indictments at least seven times.
After failing to secure an indictment within 30 days, as required by law, prosecutors refiled Reid's case as a misdemeanor. This week, after a three-day trial, a jury deliberated for less than two hours before acquitting Reid of the misdemeanor charge.
The case was troubled from the start. "Nearly a dozen people in the federal jury pool said they couldn't be impartial in the case because of their feelings," CNN reported. One said she couldn't be impartial about immigration officials because "Just last month…my cousin and my aunt were taken from me."
At an evidentiary hearing in August, a government witness claimed there was no video of the incident in question because the jail's cameras weren't working at the time. But on Monday, the night before the trial, federal officials suddenly turned over two videos of the altercation that they had previously claimed didn't exist.
"Either your agent lied, or [the D.C. Department of Corrections] lied, or someone was sloppy," U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan told prosecutors.
The prosecution alleged that during the scuffle, when asked to calm down, Reid "continued to resist and instead began raising up her leg as if preparing to strike the
agents with her knee"—which would constitute simple assault, even though she did not actually make contact.
Reid said she was present when an officer "viewed a video of the incident, captured by cellphone," and "the angle of the video shows that the knee was not directed at any law enforcement officer but was a reactive movement." But when her attorneys requested a copy of that video, officials said it was posted on social media, and the link was now dead. They also noted that even though multiple agents at the scene wore body cameras, those cameras were either turned off or had dead batteries.
In September, Sooknanan granted the defense's request to include as evidence text messages that Bates sent to another officer after the incident, in which she called her injuries "boo boos" and referred to Reid as a "lib tard."
Then at trial, during cross-examination of Bates, Reid's attorney realized a text was missing from what Bates submitted as evidence. "That seems to be a common theme with all your witnesses," Sooknanan asked the prosecutor. "Did they lie, or did they continuously make mistakes?"
"This verdict shows that this administration and their peons are not able to invoke fear in all citizens," Reid said in a scorching statement after the verdict. "I feel sorry for the prosecutors really, who must be burdened by Trump's irrational and unfounded hatred for his fellow man. He's a crazy person who's in charge of the most powerful nation."
"This case is a warning from the Department of Justice that they will have the backs of ICE goons, even when three grand juries reject their baseless charging decisions," added Reid's attorneys. "The Department of Justice can continue to take these cases to trial to suppress dissent and to try and intimidate people. But in the end, as long as we have a jury system, our citizens will continue to rebuke the DOJ through speedy acquittals."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is just grand. Cops are always full of themselves, like referees and umpires who think they are the most important people in the game. This cop, oooh, got some lacerations, how awful! And all for just wanting to not be recorded in public.
I also think back to the Second Amendment's spirit, that when push comes to shove, people have the right to rebuke the government. These grand juries and this jury were following in the Peter Zengler tradition of telling the government to fuck off.
Unfortunately, that won't be the lesson imbibed by the lefties. They will claim they are fighting Trump, not the government, and celebrate when Newsom or AOC does the same thing after 2028 or 2032 or whenever the pendulum swings back. They aren't interested in taming the government, only in taming Trump.
Yes, all this illustrates is there a two-tiered system based on political affiliation in certain districts, which we already knew
Exactly right. In DC prosecutors refuse to do their jobs and when the feds step in the Grand Juries made up of democrats refuse to indict. The story only proves that in certain jurisdictions you can literally get away with felony assault if your a Democrat
"Cops are always full of themselves,"
Always. Always? They (all cops from all time) ALWAYS?
You got a cite or can prove this?
And laceration are ok to give to a cop? I do not know what to say to that.
https://people.com/human-interest/massachusetts-police-officer-dies-trying-to-save-drowning-14-year-old-boy/
Sarc Jr won't Ike that cite though.
OMG one anecdote disproves all the others!
Senator Fettlemen praised Trump. A Democrat praised Trump. Does that disprove all (yes, I said "all", tracerv's gonna have a heart attack) the times you've disparaged Democrats?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_TZdcYzHWz8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_56ow_HKV4
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/norwalk-cop-saves-baby-kiddie-pool-20816173.php
There are a bunch of these, if you’d like.
There are also a bunch of police saving hostages and victims from horrible pieces of shit. Could post some of those too.
I guess you don't understand "all" either, and understand figurative speech as well as tracerv.
Simple narratives for simple minds. He doesn't care.
Is that why you are so mesmerized by Trump, to the extent of refusing to acknowledge he doesn't understand the most basic economic terms, such as trade deficits and foreign investment being the same thing; that tariffs are domestic taxes; and that tariffs cannot simultaneously raise enough revenue to replace income taxes, block all imports to boost inefficient domestic industry, and be zero?
Are you really such a coward, or are you really as dumb as Trump on economics?
You people are exhausting. How about this: the cops shouldn’t have harassed this person for filming them, and shouldn’t have arrested her for something so stupid as the cop trying to unlawfully detain them got a scratch on her hand.
Any reasonable person understands this, as evidenced by 3 grand juries and one regular jury easily reaching this decision.
Stop trying to start shit by twisting people’s words around. It makes you look stupid and/or unwilling to think critically for yourself.
I expected no one to understand the fundamental point, that this is citizens telling the government to fuck right off, as they did in Peter Zengler's trial 300 years ago. You would rather take Trump's side than ordinary citizens. You have no principles, just the one principal.
Principles means taking the good with the bad.
And as for tracerv, how conveniently you object to the figurative "all" when it strikes against you. How often do you say things about "all Democrats" or "all lefties"?
tracerv is a hypocrite.
Really? I don't ever remember using the term "all lefties" or "all democrats" in my comments.
Granted I can be a dick, but I don't know if hypocrisy is the right charge, Your Honor.
I'm not going to waste my time looking for previous comments. But you are human and just as prone to figurative speech; look at your "I don't ever remember", as ungrammatical as it is. Do you sometimes remember? Or did you mean "I don't remember ever"?
So let's rephrase it. Have you ever complained about other comments using those phrases?
Selective enforcement is just as hypocritical.
Law enforcement are allowed to be assaulted and battered and it’s all good to the wokies. Watch a few dozen arrest videos on Donut Operator and see if you’d accept that as lawful if happening to you. But, the jury has spoken. OJ got let loose too and behaved afterwards.
Law enforcement are allowed to be assaulted and battered and it’s all good to the wokies.
Apparently it's also "all good" to your team as well.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-pardons-include-david-dempsey-2018644
David Dempsey, a man convicted of stomping on police officers' heads during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol building, was among those pardoned by President Donald Trump on Monday.
Dempsey didn’t reportedly stomp on anyone’s head, except per Newsweek. Did Autumn used to work in their newsroom? He did do other things that rose to assault and battery as well as assault with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to his charges. Served about five months of time in prison prior to the pardon, plus time detained awaiting his speedy trial. He should have served the full twenty years for what he did.
Demjeff racial collectivist, what part of the above dovetails into your “all good” statement?
I agree with you that Dempsey belongs in jail. But your team does not. Your team thinks of Dempsey as a "tourist" and supports pardoning him. So your team has no moral standing to complain about anyone disrespecting the police or breaking the law when they openly condone setting free violent thugs like Dempsey who CONFESSED to his crimes and was duly convicted in a court of law.
My team? This is news to me as I have none. Do I get a jersey, a travel expense account, and merch checks?
You’re an irrelevant authority, so I don’t care what kind of rules you’re trying to assign like some collectivist apparatchik. I also don’t feel like wasting my time sorting through the rest of your mess beyond mentioning that it is a mess.
Dempsey was rightly arrested, charged, and imprisoned. He should have served his entire sentence.
Weird how you always seem to side with the team who favored pardoning Dempsey vs. the team who thinks he should be imprisoned.
Your memory is awful or you are lying again.
These takes always amazes me.
D.c. is 90% democrats. Their jury pool reflects leftist politics. They will always decline when a Democrat or one of their foot soldiers is arrested.
Then when even an 80 year old gop grandmother walks in the capital for under 10 minutes, they will rule for 5 year charges all the way up to 20.
Reason ignores that juries in d.c. are political. Its why they didnt talk about the prosecutors abuse during the J6 witch trials.
Reason is lost. They dont agree with equality under the law. They applaud political execution of the law.
Before the 2020's, I never heard of partisan juries.
They've existed in liberal strongholds for decades. Especially in D.C.
Cite: that bitch set me up!
Not new. In the 90s when I lived in Chicago a bunch of black guys I know that did jury duty, and flat out said they said innocent because the guy on trial was black
"But partisan juries!" is a long-standing standard argument against jury nullification. "But what about those Jim Crow era partisan white juries refusing to indict or convict KKK members for their lynchings and other crimes against blacks and Republicans?"
Team Red has no room to complain here. They defend and support pardoning violent criminals who assaulted police on Jan. 6. These types of prosecutions are not about 'law and order'. They are not about protecting law enforcement. They are about retaliation and retribution. They are about making sure that the libs "know their place" and understand that when right-wingers are in charge, their orders shall not be challenged. It is about establishing THEIR version of order, by any means necessary, and if it takes sending a guy to prison who throws a sandwich at an officer, then so be it.
Did not your side whine when Lafayette Square was cleared following days of rioting?
led by interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro—seemingly intended to throw the book at them, whether or not the punishment actually fit the crime.
Oh my god, enough about January 6, can we get something more topical?
Tit for tat, right? Look at all of those unjust political persecutions of Jan. 6 tourists, especially the ones who stomped on police officers' heads. Now it's time for a little bit of payback! The guy who throws sandwiches, send him to the electric chair!
Sure, let's agree to disagree. Let's realize our mistake, and let these people off the hook, but we're going to uphold the convictions and long sentences (and treatment) of January 6 pro-democracy protesters.
How about you develop some principles instead of just basing your whole philosophy on "stopping the left". Even Chumby above says he disagrees with pardons for violent Jan. 6 criminals. Can you even bother to say that much? FFS even JD Vance (before the election) disagreed with pardons for violent Jan. 6 criminals. Can you even say that much?
It's clear Trump didn't learn anything from Biden. Unlike the "Biden federal police", "the Trump federal police" left this one alive.
Remember that Lancaster, when your 'allies' have you against the wall because you are no longer useful to the revolution.
Grand juries are leftist.
The Bill of Rights is Leftist. It requires grand jury indictments and guarantees jury trials.
The antifa brownshirts are seemingly more active.
I remember being told that the Trump administration was going after the undocumented violent criminals and drug dealers. Now it seem they want to just go after any and everybody.
It now is going after political opponents. Exactly what the Nazis did.
Yeah others have made the point above but their were over a thousand non violent protesters on J6 that DC grand juries had no problem indicting and DC judges had no problem putting in jail. Reason pissed away any credibility on this issue years ago and the DC court system did the same. Just fuck off. You are beyond redemption. Reason traded libertarianism for a leftist regime. Again. Just fuck off.
There were thousands of nonviolent protesters on January 6th. They stayed on the mall and did not get arrested.
80% of those charged committed zero violence or vandalism. Their average term was over a year.
More time on average than violence and arsonist for BLM.
You are the baddie.
Woman Acquitted of Assaulting FBI Agent After 3 Grand Juries Declined To Indict
https://tinyurl.com/mr3hhfm9
Skipped a couple steps in that headline there, didn't you.