After failing to secure an indictment from a grand jury in the “Broadview Six” case last October, federal prosecutors tried again a week later but ran into immediate pushback from some members of the panel, according to transcripts of the extraordinary proceedings made public Tuesday.
One grand juror pressed prosecutors on whether they could keep coming back for “unlimited tries” even when charges had been rejected, and asked if there was any new evidence that would be presented in the second session.
“Okay. I’m feeling the skepticism already,” veteran Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript of the Oct. 16 proceedings. “Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.”
The grand juror said no — and then added something even more startling.
“I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of (expletive) then and I still think it is,” the grand juror said, according to the transcript.
“Okay. Thank you for your opinion for everybody,” Mecklenburg replied. “I kind of had that impression from last week, but thank you. … If you feel that you can’t be (impartial), then excuse yourself.”
Mecklenburg then proceeded to have the foreperson count the remaining members of the panel to make sure they had 16, which constitutes a quorum for voting purposes, according to the transcript. The session continued with testimony from witnesses, though no indictment was returned that day, either.
A week later, on Oct. 23, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros went before the same grand jury, introduced himself as the U.S. attorney, and told the panel they had an important “constitutional” function to play in the judicial system, according to a transcript provided in an unusual report released by Boutros last week.
Boutros also said “setting aside your emotions, setting aside your personal views, beliefs and biases” was very important, according to a transcript provided in Boutros’ report.
Hours later, Mecklenburg began yet another grand jury session with a “mea culpa,” telling the jurors that she had conversations with two of their colleagues on the panel outside the jury room, the transcripts show.
“I’m the one who knows the rules, and I did something today that I’m not supposed to do,” Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript.
In one instance, she said, a juror apologized to her in the elevator in connection with something that happened during the prior week.
“I told the Grand Juror that I accepted his apology. I wasn’t mad. I understand people have feelings,” Mecklenburg said. “The Grand Juror said at that time that he did have feelings, and he’s sure that he’s right, but he shouldn’t have walked out the way he did.”
What to know about the controversial ‘Broadview Six’ case — and its collapse in court
The release of the transcripts comes three weeks after the Broadview Six case imploded on the eve of trial, with U.S. District Judge April Perry describing “shocking” misconduct by the prosecutor, including “vouching” about the strength of the evidence, removing panel members who disagreed with the prosecution’s theory of the case, and having “ex parte” communications with a grand juror outside the proceedings.
Perry also blasted the U.S. attorney’s office trial team for redacting large portions of grand jury transcripts that had been submitted for her review.
The transcripts shine a rare light on what is typically a secretive process, where prosecutors get to present evidence to a panel of ordinary citizens and seek charges without defense attorneys or a judge present.
The transcripts also detail just how fraught the prosecution’s case against the Broadview Six was even in the grand jury stage, where prosecutors only have to meet a relatively low “probable cause” threshold to secure an indictment and grand juries almost always vote in lockstep in the government’s favor.
Unlike in criminal trials, grand juries do not need to be unanimous. Instead, a federal grand jury consists of 16 to 23 members, with only 12 votes in favor needed to return a “true bill,” regardless of how many exact members are on the panel.
Charged in the case were: Katherine “Kat” Abughazaleh, 27, who came in second in the March Democratic primary for Illinois’ 9th District congressional seat; Andre Martin, 27, who was Abughazaleh’s campaign manager; Michael Rabbitt, 62, a 45th Ward Democratic committeeman; Brian Straw, 36, a Democratic trustee in Oak Park; Catherine Sharp, a onetime candidate for the Cook County Board, and Joselyn Walsh, a part-time garden store worker and singer.
Prosecutors had alleged the defendants were part of a group that surrounded an ICE vehicle outside the Broadview facility during a Sept. 26 protest and “banged aggressively” on the vehicle’s side and back windows, hood and doors before they “crowded together in the front and side of the Government Vehicle and pushed against the vehicle to hinder and impede its movement.”
They further alleged that the protesters scratched the vehicle’s body, broke a side mirror and a rear windshield wiper and etched the word “PIG” into the paint — though no one was ever accused of specifically causing that damage.
The records released Tuesday showed the improper “vouching” began just minutes into the very first grand jury session on Oct. 9, when Mecklenburg told the panel she was presenting “a very interesting case,” adding that she had purposely requested to bring it before the Thursday grand jury — “because I know you and I trust you and you know me and you trust me.”
She closed her introduction with a reminder and a plea.
“I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn’t think there was probable cause,” Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript. “So in this case I want you to do what we have done and that is put aside any personal feelings.”
Mecklenburg then walked through the basics of the case — a supervisor at the processing center, identified as a facilities manager for the building — was heading to report to the building when a crowd of people surrounded his car.
“They are banging on the hood and they are banging on the windows and they are pushing up against — they’re standing in front of the car,” Mecklenburg said. “They’re chanting, they’re scratching into the car.”
Authorities analyzed videos of the car’s creeping progress into the facility as they circulated on social media, Mecklenburg said, and identified a handful of people who the government planned to charge.
The transcript shows grand jurors were skeptical about Mecklenburg’s characterization of the defendants’ actions as conspiracy.
“I understand the hindering and impeding,” one juror said. “But the conspiring?”
“A conspiracy is just an agreement,” Mecklenburg responded, according to the transcript.
Mecklenburg argued that everyone at the scene was responsible for the events that occurred that morning.
“We don’t have to find the person who scratched “Pig” into the car,” she said. “We just have to show that they were all doing this.”
The grand jurors asked plenty of other questions, including why the ICE agent driving the car hadn’t called for help, and if authorities had spoken to the driver of another truck that appeared behind the car in the video, the transcript showed.
One panel member asked why the agent hadn’t just stopped if he had been concerned about hitting people. Mecklenburg said the driver had testified to being afraid that protesters would break the car’s windows and pull him out.
“He was concerned about stopping for his own safety and he was concerned about the safety in the front,” she said, according to the transcript. “I would argue he did a pretty good job of balancing it because nobody got hurt.”
But one of the jurors saw it differently, asking: “Can’t you say he was trying to run over the people?” the transcript showed.
The jury’s forewoman pointed out that there were many more than six people in the video before them, and wanted to know: “Are these six people in this because you’re able to identify them and the others —”
Mecklenburg cut her off.
“I will answer that for you,” Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript. “I will tell you the investigation continues.”
“Okay,” the forewoman responded.
“I might be back,” Mecklenburg said. “I might not. But for right now, these are the six people who we are comfortable have been identified. Identifications continue.”
The government never charged any other defendants in the case. Meanwhile, the grand jury refused to return an indictment that day, leading to another session a week later before the same panel.
That Oct. 16 session began awkwardly, with Mecklenburg saying that between all of the questions and the failure to return an indictment, “I did not do my job,” the transcript shows.
Mecklenburg said her goal was to give the grand jury “a little mini class on the law” as well as direct testimony from the agent who was driving the car.
Still, the grand jury session was tense. After the one juror’s “crock of (expletive)” comment, Mecklenburg had another testy exchange with another member of the panel who asked about any “new evidence.”
“Yes, we do,” Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript. “We have new evidence.
And when you took your oath, that oath didn’t say, ‘do you like the law, do you like the facts?’ It’s ‘can you be fair?’ And that’s all we’re asking.”
After the juror said they didn’t think they could vote, Mecklenburg asked if they still had enough people for a quorum, the transcript showed.
Then, as her colleague, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Skiba, attempted to fix technical issues with playing the video, Mecklenburg told the grand jury: “I will say I’m a little disappointed that there are people who didn’t want to hear the agent. Disappointed.”
That session ended abruptly with no vote taken.
Meanwhile, word of the discord reached Boutros’ leadership team, prompting his extremely unusual appearance before the panel on Oct. 23.
“Fairness is the key to the operation of our system,” Boutros said, according to the transcript. “So is there anyone here who thinks that he or she cannot be fair, cannot be open-minded, cannot receive evidence, cannot set aside their personal feelings on any case, immigration or otherwise, child exploitation, immigration, whatever it is. Anyone who thinks they can’t do it, please raise your hand.”
According to the transcript, no one raised their hand, and after a few more general remarks, Boutros left the room.
What to know about the controversial ‘Broadview Six’ case — and its collapse in court
After Boutros left, the grand jury was again presented with evidence from the case and asked to return an indictment charging the six defendants with felony conspiracy, the records show. That session began with Mecklenburg’s apology for speaking to speaking to two grand jurors outside the official proceedings.
“I was up here and somebody — one of the Grand Jurors said to me something about last week. And he said, ‘I’m sorry. I under- — I can apply the facts to the law. I understand that people have feelings, but we have to apply the facts to the law.'”
She told the jurors it’s difficult to not respond when someone speaks.
“I won’t do that again,” she said. “If I see you and I don’t — and I just say, ‘Hello, how’s the weather,’ you will understand it’s nothing personal.”
During that session, Mecklenburg instructed jurors that in conspiracy cases, co-conspirators are “responsible for other things that people do,” the transcript showed.
A juror asked: “So are — is it basically arguing that pretty much anybody who walked in front of that car could be charged with a conspiracy even if they weren’t actually touching the car and somehow impeding it, even if they were just walking along with it?”
According to the transcript, Mecklenburg scolded the juror: “That is not what we charged. And I don’t want to answer hypotheticals. We charged only people who were actually doing things.”
That grand jury eventually returned a true bill charging all six defendants with felony conspiracy and a misdemeanor count of impeding the agent.
The indictment was announced by the U.S. attorney’s office on Oct. 29 with much fanfare, but it soon showed signs of cracking.
Mecklenburg left the U.S. attorney’s office in February for a job with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C. Weeks later, all charges against Sharp and Walsh were dismissed. And in April, prosecutors announced the lone felony conspiracy count was also being cut.
As the suddenly low-level case wound its way toward trial, with jury selection set to begin after Memorial Day, Perry whistled prosecutors into court to explain redactions made in the grand jury transcripts that had been given to her.
The judge said there was a “potential” for “sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct and for potential ethical violations, including lack of candor to the court.”
Later that day, Boutros dismissed what was left of the case, saying he had only found out about the problems in the grand jury in late April and made a quick decision to drop the felony conspiracy charge.
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
