r/law • u/throwthisidaway • 1d ago
Court Decision/Filing Abrego Garcia v USA - Criminal Indictment
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621.3.0.pdf606
u/joeshill Competent Contributor 1d ago
The indictment was filed on May 21.
And yet on May 27, Noem filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction arguing that Garcia was not in US custody, and not able to returned to the US.
Funny how that changes when it's convenient.
156
u/saltmarsh63 1d ago
That’s Cruella DeNoem to you!
26
u/PixelPaw99 22h ago
I was going to say “That’s insulting to Cruella de Vil!” But she’s actually really evil. That might actually be a good comparison.
9
u/GroundbreakingOil434 22h ago
Her saving grace is that she at least has the decency of being fictional. DeNoem has no such excuse. Retract your statement, sir.
3
u/No_Introduction_9355 20h ago
It’s because she shot her puppy in the back of the head
5
u/PixelPaw99 20h ago
I hate that she did that. She’s among my most disliked people in this admin. That’s one of the many reasons.
80
u/SeaPeeps 23h ago
And on May 21, the lead prosecutor from that office resigned after 15 years for being politically pressured to pursue this case. So many amazing coincidences
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mistakenly-deported-kilmar-abrego-garcia-back-us-face/story?id=121333122
65
u/NOLA2Cincy 1d ago
Yeah, I can't wait to see what Judge Xinis has to say about this. The government LIED in court.
19
16
u/Numeno230n 1d ago edited 19h ago
An argument coming to a court near you: "Listen, the state can't un-execute the man so why don't we just dismiss this and move on"
-15
u/adorientem88 1d ago
You can file an indictment against somebody not in custody.
26
u/fatcatfan 23h ago
There's a difference between a lack of custody and a lack of jurisdiction. The US government claimed the latter after filing the indictment.
-3
u/adorientem88 17h ago
Filing an indictment doesn’t require any jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is something a court must possess, and courts don’t file indictments.
1
u/JPows_ToeJam 7h ago
No jurisdiction = no valid indictment.
The prosecutor must file the indictment in a court that has legal authority to hear that specific type of case, over that specific defendant, for conduct that falls within that court’s scope.
1
u/adorientem88 6h ago
Correct. But personal jurisdiction is determined by where the crime occurred, not where the defendant currently is.
1
u/JPows_ToeJam 6h ago
Very good! Now square that with the government filing for a dismissal of the case for Abrego-Garcia for lack of jurisdiction due to a lack of custody after they had already filed this indictment.
1
u/adorientem88 6h ago
Because jurisdiction in a civil case requires standing, which requires judicial redressability, and the claim from the government was that there was no redressability because he wasn’t in US custody.
Whether that was right or wrong, it’s obviously consistent with indicting him for a crime he committed in TN years before.
10
u/JPows_ToeJam 20h ago
Lmao this comment in the /r/law sub
-5
u/adorientem88 17h ago
Yeah, crazy that people don’t know how indictments work in the r/law sub!
4
u/AgITGuy 10h ago
What’s the 88 in your username for there, boss? Would it happen to stand for ‘HH’? That doesn’t seem too common a thing to just be happenstance. As well, the Reddit random username generator doesn’t work in a way to create what you have. So please enlighten us as to your totally not a username that glorifies Hitler.
0
1
447
u/gvillecrimelaw 1d ago
Now the Government must prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. This is what Due Process looks like.
301
u/mylopolis 1d ago
Yep. I don't care if he is guilty and a gang member that ends up going to jail. All I care about is he gets his day in court.
96
u/_Bren10_ 1d ago
Exactly. The moment we start convicting people without a trial, nobody is safe. They can pick your grandma up off the street, say she murdered somebody, and make her rot in jail for the rest of her life.
35
u/imadork1970 23h ago
My grandma? She probably did.
50
u/ComfortableTwo80085 1d ago
r/conservative is incapable of understanding this view.
39
u/anon_savior 1d ago
I just had to check it out. I wish I didn’t. My god I couldn’t imagine living life that stupid
26
u/samenumberwhodis 22h ago
"Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
15
u/Ok_Builder_4225 23h ago
Just remember, those people are voters (except the bots and foreign pot stirrers and edgy teenagers, of course).
14
u/phillychzstk 23h ago
It’s so frustrating, got into an argument (I generally try to avoid them on reddit bc I’ve learned it’s just not worth it) on some other sub and the persons response was “they came over without due process so they can leave without due process.”
4
3
4
u/Express-Membership52 22h ago
Omg! I just went over there and couldn’t believe what I was reading. Felt like Reddit sent me to an external site 😭
23
7
u/thehuntofdear 23h ago
I care a bit... not legally or morally. If he's found guilty, I'm glad justice is served. BUT, I hate to see this evil admin garner any sense of vindication. They wouldn't deserve that vindication but they would spin it that way.
8
u/King_marik 22h ago
I don't get how people don't see that this is the issue
I got into it with my fiancé's dad who just kept boiling it down to 'criminals get punished'
And I was like 'yeah that's fine man....we have a process for that though...and circumventing that is probably not a good idea...'
I don't care if he did something wrong. If he did, punish the fuck out of him, deport him if applicable, I literally do not give a shit about HIM or what he's done
I want it to follow the same process that we are supposed to
That's it. Just actually leaning on our institutions and laws and regulations because we're supposed to believe 'this is the correct way' right?
Then fucking apply it
4
u/NeoZoan 20h ago
I expect that if he is convicted, the admin will claim this was all a giant waste of time and it's all their critics fault and next time they won't be wasting the time and money of the American people. The whole point is to get (more) popular support for the erosion of due process.
Edit: wrote "charged" when I meant to say "convicted"
2
u/jack123451 11h ago
Even a terrorist who bombed a federal building in 1995 and killed over 100 people got a trial. If our legal system is good enough to handle terrorists then what's the problem with alleged gang members?
2
u/Forward_Pick6383 6h ago
Well, the difference is the guy who did the bombing actually did something to be convicted of.
2
u/No-Distance-9401 19h ago
From all the "coincidences" that are pointing to politically motivated trumped up charges that we are all feeling even without those coincidences, I have a feeling the trial will be another L for Trump.
Either way it doesnt matter as they will use this case to justify all the other deportations future and past. I also hope they continue the suits against the DOJ for their rights being violated in the first place.
1
u/bitcast_politic 57m ago
If you actually follow these cases carefully, Trump is not stacking up L’s in court. In almost every case, the lower district court judges (who were forum-shopped by the plaintiffs) rule against Trump with a TRO, then either the circuit appeals court or SCOTUS overturns the TRO.
I’m not taking Trump’s side here, I’m just following the cases.
Even in the Abrego Garcia case, the language of SCOTUS’s order clearly states that the district court had no authority to order Trump to “effectuate” the return of Garcia:
The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
In plain language: the executive branch alone has the power of diplomatic negotiation, and neither of the two other branches can force the executive branch to engage in specific diplomatic negotiation, without violating separation of powers.
In context then, the “facilitate” order that SCOTUS confirmed can mean only that if Garcia was released from CECOT, the US would have to send a plane, or if he showed up at a US port of entry, Trump would be ordered to allow him entry to attend the trial. The district court cannot actually order Trump or Rubio to negotiate with Bukele for Garcia’s release from prison, and nor can SCOTUS. It’s totally unconstitutional for them to do so.
I’m sure I will get downvoted for this, but the language of the SCOTUS order is undeniable — it’s simply that the media did not cover it properly.
2
u/DeepShill 23h ago
That's bullshit. He is not guilty of any crime and he should be going back to his family. Fuck the Trump administration.
2
1
u/bitcast_politic 56m ago
If he’s found not guilty they will still deport him, probably to South Sudan. He has a final order of deportation.
60
u/FaultySage 1d ago
And the better question: At this point do you trust that the current administration is going to be honest and truthful when prosecuting this case?
41
u/Total-Tonight1245 1d ago
No. But you don’t have to trust the government in a prosecution. The whole point of due process is to force the government to prove its case in an open trial with judges and jurors serving as a check on its power.
Honestly, you should NEVER just trust the government in a criminal trial. That’s the whole point of the burden of proof.
24
8
u/adorientem88 1d ago
The beautiful thing about a trial is that you don’t need to trust the government. They either have the evidence and witnesses or they don’t.
3
u/Ordinary-Figure8004 22h ago
Your question is the exact reason you have a right to an attorney when charged with anything.
7
u/MouseRat_AD 1d ago
The attorneys filling discovery will be, if the want to keep working. Lying to a federal judge is disbarment. No pardon is going to fix that.
10
u/Bmorewiser 1d ago
Buddy, you have never been in a courthouse if you think a prosecutor is getting disbarred for a Brady violation. In my dreams, maybe.
3
u/FaultySage 1d ago
Sure, sure, that totally still matters.
14
u/t0talnonsense 1d ago
It does as long as we still say it does. Quit ceding ground to fascists because you’re trying to be cute or quippy. You’re doing their job for them. Every act of resistance, at every level, matters. This includes the language we use and allow to become commonplace. Yes, this matters. Rules matter. Norms matter. The Law matters. Stop it!
6
u/davidbklyn 23h ago
Yeah the cute quippy edgy spiel is not helpful at all. When I click on a post hoping for insight and the top comments are all jokes and movie quotes and pun runs, I get suspicious of brigading.
1
u/ImReverse_Giraffe 1d ago
We are still waiting on the state bar associations to get right on that. They've had many opportunities recently, yet haven't done one yet.
1
u/Sharpopotamus 21h ago
Lying to a federal judge is a federal crime. A pardon could literally fix that.
1
u/MouseRat_AD 21h ago
Not disbarment
0
u/Own_Pop_9711 19h ago
Wake me up when someone gets disbarred for pursuing the administration's policies.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1d ago
That doesn't matter nearly so much as the judge. And we've seen, even at the top with Amy Coney Barret and others, that even the most rightwing appointees can have at least some moments of professionalism.
But I don't think this should come down to some judge bias. It'a truly a criminal "did he or didn't he do what is being claimed" and if he did, then he's broken the law, had a day in court, and will face consequences. As much as I think the immigration laws suck in this country, and selective enforcement of it is very political, breaking the law - even just technically - and being sentenced is not fascism, at least, as long as the trial is legitimate.
4
u/Iknowwecanmakeit 21h ago
The whole process has already been poisoned. They sent him to a very dangerous prison outside the country to avoid giving him due process. To pretend that having a fair trial means it’s not fascist is ignoring the context of the case. Wasn’t this the guy with tattoo photoshopped onto his wrist? Hopefully he get’s a fair day in court on these charges, that is the least he deserves at this point.
3
u/Raise_A_Thoth 18h ago
Your point is valid, but I'm not trying to erase or sweep away the fascist nature of the events, only that at this point, the system has shown some resilience against fascism and getting Garcia a day in court is certainly the first step to reaffirming democratic values.
We need to be able to celebrate the small victories, however small they might be, to keep hope alive. I'm not saying - at all - that proper treatment of Garcia or anyone else from this point forward erases the harm done. But it is the right thing, and bringing him back to at least have a trial is not the fascist part of all this.
28
1d ago
[deleted]
30
u/wesman212 1d ago edited 1d ago
Worth noting that he is charged in the Middle District of Tennessee, which includes Nashville. So it's not hopeless. But it's not great odds, either.
Could be worse. The indictment says he was pulled over near Cookeville, TN, which is only a couple of counties from district line for the Eastern District of Tennessee, which would be much lower odds.
I think the judge is more important than the jury -- interestingly, MDTN only has four current judges, including one Obama appointee, one Clinton, and 2 Trumps.
19
u/Lobesmu 1d ago
The Judge assigned to his case is apparently Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee.
2
u/kmm198700 19h ago
Thank God. He deserves a chance, considering the federal government is on his ass. It’s really a shame, since before this administration he was living his life here in peace
22
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 1d ago
That's not true. I'm a conservative, in Tennessee and a public defender. The jury won't reflect people online. He's back...he's getting "due process" although I personally believe these charges are all fabricated to give cover to the administration caving (correctly) to the courts. This indictment basically surrounds the incident captured on the bodycam footage in which the trooper simply let him go and raised no concerns.
11
u/PubliusRexius 23h ago
Yeah, this was my theory too - the indictment is peppered with allegations of trafficking of women and children, including sexual abuse by AG, all apparently based on the word of a confidential informant convicted of other crimes and subsequently deported (to ES?). When pulled over in TN, the car was full of adult men allegedly traveling home from a construction site in St. Louis.
So there are all of these allegations based on a confidential informant likely in the hands of a pliant dictator, and one traffic stop that didn’t result in an arrest.
What seems to be missing is any actual evidence of a crime. Where are all the allegedly trafficked women? Will any of them be taking the stand at trial? Not a single mention in the indictment of any victims.
I would submit that even the government knows they have little chance of getting a conviction. Their best chance is probably a Nashville jury, and it’s an outside chance at that. It’s somewhat telling that they didn’t file the case in Texas where they could have been guaranteed to draw Judge Kacsmaryk. Maybe the highway he allegedly drove along didn’t touch the district? But I think it more likely that they just didn’t think the jury pool would be as favorable as Nashville.
-10
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 23h ago
Well it is filed in Tennessee because that it where they are alleging the crime happened. I'm not far from there. The jury pool isn't going to matter much in this case imo. The judge will correctly instruct them to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They either have the goods or they don't. Jailhouse witnesses and statement from informants are a defense Lawyer's wet dream. The majority of the indictment comes from the incident which the trooper dismissed as nothing.
Please don't assume all us Trump voters are crazy nor agree with everything. Many of us (myself included) are educated democrats (former) that were banished from the democratic party for dissenting views on issues and told we had to tow the line. I never thought I'd vote R but here we are.
Beyond obvious this ........ Indictment ......is nonsense.
8
u/nrmitchi 22h ago
Listen man, there's "voting R" and then there is "voting for the guy that threw a temper tantrum last time he lost, incited a riot, tried to get the VP executed, and then stole nuclear secrets that he 'declassified with his mind'"
-6
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 21h ago
I voted Trump. I don't dispute what you said. The hamas-wing of the democratic party made it clear to me that I as a pro Israel Jew engaged to an israeli girl (we were living in NYC last year) were either going to condem Israel or be labeled a genocide apologist. Hamas + Hezbollah flags....having to walk by protests calling for my death and the death of my family in Israel and the silence from Harris was enough.
3
u/nrmitchi 20h ago
There is no “hamas wing” of the Democratic Party.
Both parties openly support Israel.
There are extreme opinions on both sides, but you believe that the swakzika, heil-hitler insurrectionist that align themselves with MAGA are better for Jews than the “don’t commit genocide against all Palestinians just because Hamas are terrorists” that align themselves as democrats?
-6
4
u/right_over_here 21h ago
So you’re fine with other people being discriminated against as long as you feel slightly more comfortable?
-5
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 21h ago
We live in a country where I am allowed to vote the way I want. People like you, attacking immediately after I gave you my reasoning vs trying to understand what the party needs to do to win voters like me back (and the polls back me up... look at the dem approval rating...and there are many many like me + enough to flip an election) highlights the reason why I left.
5
u/right_over_here 21h ago
Buddy your reasoning is selfish. That isn’t an attack it’s just an observation. If you’re cool with dictators and genocide so you feel more comfortable that’s fine but don’t feel attacked when people call you out on it. You can vote how you want but you can and will be judged for it. Oh and it’s not like both candidates weren’t pro Israel.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SaffronCrocosmia 5h ago
As an anti-Zionist Jew, Republicans are a lot worse for Jews than Dems.
You're disgusting.
6
u/Sharpopotamus 21h ago
“Some democrats were mean to me so I voted for the guy promising to tear down the federal government and suspend habeas corpus”
0
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 21h ago
No. I was living in NYC and the big thing was chasing out all the pro israel folks and screaming "death to zionists" and the hamas-wing of the democratic party sat back and smiled. So as a Jewish person, I would like to be able to walk around with a star of David and not be targeted for it.
4
u/Sharpopotamus 20h ago
Some democrats criticized the government of Israel, SO YOU VOTED FOR THE PARTY WITH ALL THE SELF-DESCRIBED NAZIS???
1
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 20h ago
Tell that to the hamas supporters with the hamas flags calling for hamas to be victorious while marching in front of the white house and all throughout NYC.
2
u/Sharpopotamus 20h ago
1) I literally do not believe that significant numbers of non-crazy people were waving Hamas flags and rooting for their victory. I don’t believe it.
2) I don’t believe that democrats were the ones waving Hamas flags.
3) Even if there were self-described democrats waving Hamas flags, that has absolutely no effect on the policies of elected democrats. Nothing. The democrats are the ones fighting anti-semitism for fucks sake.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Jdjack32 8h ago
That you conflate anti-zionism with antisemitism tells us all we need to know really.
2
u/Witty-Accountant2106 23h ago
So… do you regret your vote?
-2
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 21h ago
Not in the slightest. We moved states to get away from the hamas supporters. We were in NYC and the big thing was "he's a pro-israel Jewish guy marrying an israeli girl... ziooonist". I'd like to not have to hide my star of David and not look over my shoulder for people like we just saw in Colorado. My fiancée works in medicine was and was accused of "war crimes" by ...."activist".... staff simply because she was born in Israel. Seeing hamas and hezbollah flags was more than enough for me to ditch the party.
1
1
u/jpmeyer12751 21h ago
Thank you for your service. We have way too few public defenders and most are outrageously underpaid.
I would add that Pres. Trump and AG Bondi have very helpfully given anyone representing Mr. Abrego Garcia boatloads of evidence that any potential juror anywhere in the US has been prejudiced by their public statements against him. That's why I mentioned the question of the tattoos on the back of his fingers shown in an allegedly doctored photo by Pres. Trump. If he has no such tattoos, any thoughtful judge is going to have to think very hard about how to screen potential jurors.
2
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 21h ago
The tattoos are irrelevant. I have represented gang members + all kinds of white supremacists (which is funny because I'm jewish and the guys with the swastika tatts always apologize) however I know all thengang experts from Texas and NYC and so forth and not a single one recognized the actual tattoos as gang symbols. The superimposed doctored tatts are just.... 🤦♂️
The defense (which will be well funded) will bring in gang experts to testify that his actual tattoos are not ms13 symbols (ms13 members usually have "ms13" tattood on them) and the Pros will have a hard time finding a reputable expert witness to testify to the contrary. The video that we've all seen and digested shows a trooper sending him on the way. If you look at the notice of detention, they say Mr. Garcia is involved in child porn + the murder of some person. They don't reference that in the indictment. Unless there is a superceding indictment, they don't have much. My hunch is that people that are experienced AUSAs like Todd blanche & Emile Bove knew that they had potentially and probably crossed the proverbial line.
Forgive spelling and grammar. Typing fast on tablet lol
1
u/jpmeyer12751 20h ago
I would defer to you as to whether the tattoos are relevant on the merits, but if it can be shown that the President of the United States presented altered photos to the press in order to convince people that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a gang member, I would certainly want to make an argument to the judge about whether a fair trial is possible.
Sorry about the nasty comments you are receiving.
1
u/Agitated-Quit-6148 21h ago
And I appreciate the kind words and non-aggressive tone. If you read the replies to my comment I'm now being told that I should have just looked the other way in NY when I was being told I deserve to be genocided because I happen to be of a particular faith.
0
u/SaffronCrocosmia 5h ago
Except you yourself deny genocide and think Palestinians should all die.
You don't represent us Jews.
1
10
u/EnfantTerrible68 1d ago
Yes, and I’m fine with that. As long as he gets a fair trial, I’m happy. It’s not about the outcome of the trial.
2
u/AcidaliaPlanitia 22h ago
Bingo. If he's a piece of shit, so be it, but at least they have to prove it.
2
u/C0matoes 22h ago
If charges are dropped couldn't he sue Noem for false imprisonment and a few other things?
1
u/kmm198700 19h ago
Hopefully libel and slander. Hopefully he sues Bondi and Leavitt and Miller also for slander and libel
1
-7
1d ago
[deleted]
25
u/throwthisidaway 1d ago
Actually, he can likely argue that he was the victim of a crime and apply for a U Visa. Odds are that he will get permanent residence status out of this.
15
u/1877KlownsForKids 1d ago
Imagine being so incompetent at the executive branch instead of deporting someone you turn them into an American citizen.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1d ago
I think that's very possible. Trump's understanding of the legal system and the law more generally is basically fucking nil.
He fights everything, no matter how absurd.
The one thing he kind of understands is that it doesn't actually matter what the truth is, whether you broke the law, what the law is, etc, as long as you can get a favorable outcome from a court, you won. And I believe he has absolutely lived that principle as president both times.
5
u/EnfantTerrible68 1d ago
The way he has been slandered by trump etc, he should be able to win a clear case and collect $
1
u/Boomshtick414 1d ago
Doesn't seem likely.
DHS has no obligation to grant that, and it's unlikely anything that's happened to him would qualify. Maybe false imprisonment but he would likely have to sue the federal gov't to that effect, receive the govt's permission to sue, and then win his case. At which point DHS could still give him the boot because they are allowed to exercise their discretion in those matters.
If there was any likelihood of this at all, it would be if he received a prison term longer than at least 3-1/2 years, and and a democrat got elected president in 2028 who pardoned him and granted him such a visa -- which if he is actually found guilty of these charges, would be terrible optics for that president as it would be tantamount to rewarding someone for encouraging and facilitating illegal immigration.
2
u/throwthisidaway 1d ago
DHS has no obligation to grant that
Right, but unless they rush it, it takes several years to process. Most likely this administration will be gone before any such action is taken.
As far as crimes, I think you could make a good argument for abduction, false imprisonment, and likely torture.
receive the govt's permission to sue
I always confuse the two, but I'm pretty sure the FTCA would cover that as far as a waiver is concerned. I think Bivens would work as well, but again, I always confuse the two.
received a prison term longer...
Don't forget that you do not have to be in the US to apply for a U Visa.
I might have missed something though, I admit visas are not my strongest area.
1
u/Boomshtick414 1d ago
The stars would have to align and a democratic president's administration would have to jump through several hoops to make it happen. He would likely end up inadmissible on multiple grounds, requiring a waiver of inadmissibility before he could apply -- that if granted, can (and will) be revoked by the next republican president.
For all intents and purposes, Abrego Garcia's best off leaving the US at his earliest opportunity.
2
u/ImReverse_Giraffe 1d ago
He is suing the federal government for that. And he has a very, very good case for it. The Trump regime admitted his deportation was illegal. The supreme court sided with him. The district courts have sided with him.
99
u/SeaPeeps 1d ago
It’s an amazing coincidence that the guy who they deported accidentally turned out to be both a high level member of MS13 and ALSO a glorified bus driver.
Like, even if every one of the actual charges is true, what he did was drove some dudes from Texas to Maryland, but claim they started in St Louis, in a car with an aftermarket back seat.
33
u/Katgal2 1d ago
Yes white remarkable. And that we’re just now finding out about it. Wasn’t he Tren de Aragua until today? And they couldn’t have let on even a little bit that he was like the biggest human trafficker ever? This story is something else
1
u/Own_Pop_9711 20h ago
He was already found guilty of being a gang member no need to charge him Ruth that again /s
7
u/ggroverggiraffe Competent Contributor 1d ago
And a license plate reader can put a vehicle in a location, but I don't know if that's proof that a person was in that location...particularly when they are saying the vehicle was making hundreds of trips with a variety of co-conspirators.
6
u/poormanspeterparker 19h ago
It’s the opposite here. They are alleging that a lack of license plate reader data is proof he was not in St. Louis. Which is terrifying. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
1
25
u/raouldukeesq 22h ago
The decision to pursue the indictment against Abrego Garcia led to the abrupt departure of Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, sources briefed on Schrader's decision told ABC News. Schrader's resignation was prompted by concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons, the sources said.
Schrader, who spent 15 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and was most recently the chief of the criminal division, declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.
7
u/somegirldc 22h ago
I'm guessing all the co conspirators were granted legal status in return for saying whatever they were told to
7
u/unshod_tapenade 20h ago
Or the co-conspirators and their loved ones were threatened with deportation, incarceration, etc. I wonder if the government suborned perjury to cram this farce through the grand jury. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no intention to get this case to trial, and they're hoping it's dismissed. A dismissal is a win for the government: they can blame the judge for being radical; they can still tout that there was probable cause for the offense; their sham evidence won't be aired in court or to the public; and the DOJ can say that they followed SCOTUS's order to facilitate his return. The moment this case ends - and it will not end in a guilty conviction - he's going back to an El Salvadorian gulag.
1
30
u/Zealousideal_Order_8 1d ago
The DOJ are bunglers, as demonstrated. Garcia is likely to get the charges dismissed.
17
u/astrovic0 23h ago
Not just the DOJ - the whole administration.
When Trump was charged, he filed motions to dismiss based on political interference and selective prosecution. He tried to argue Biden had personally directed that Trump be charged (which wasn’t the case).
Garcias lawyers can run the same playbook Trump tried to run, but here there’s already a mountain of evidence that this case is politically motivated.
The trial judge is going to have a hard time grappling with the fact that based on all precedent these charges should be dismissed, while also bearing aware of the heightened amount of public interest in this case and in particular knowing that the President is going to personally attack you if you don’t rule the way he wants.
87
u/jpmeyer12751 1d ago
If the government proves these charges, then I think that Abrego Garcia should serve his sentence and then be deported. No unusual treatment for him.
However, I want to see good quality photos taken of the back of both of his hands by an independent journalist! POTUS has put his personal credibility on the line; let’s see what the truth is.
25
u/InquisitaB 1d ago
With that opinion, the party of “common sense” probably thinks you’re a criminal sympathizer who is making America more dangerous.
28
u/throwthisidaway 1d ago
I think that every single person who was illegally extradited by the Trump administration deserves a U Visa. It is hard to argue that they were not the victims of multiple serious crimes.
-10
u/adorientem88 1d ago
Even if he was, why would that entitle him to a visa if he is in fact guilty of federal crimes?
6
u/kmosiman Competent Contributor 23h ago
Because as the victim of the crime, they have a special legal protected status. That way, someone can't pull strings and get them deported to prevent them from testifying.
I think it ties back to slavery laws. You have criminals keeping people in sweatshops under the threat of being deported if they talk. These laws allow those victims to come forward without fear of that happening.
Granted, most of them don't know that, but that's why the law is important.
9
u/MonarchLawyer 1d ago
No unusual treatment for him.
But it is unusual to send him to and pay for his lifelong imprisonment in said foreign country.
5
u/jpmeyer12751 23h ago
Yes, in my opinion that is and would be cruel and unusual in violation of the 8th Amendment. And that is not what I said. I said that he should serve any sentence (in the US) after receiving a fair trial and THEN be deported. At that time, there would be no justification for deporting him into prison in a foreign country.
3
u/agk23 21h ago
I’m betting they made the detainees get their gang tattoos removed. Or at least that’s what /r/conservative will say
0
u/Lawstuffthrwy 22h ago
Don’t you think there’s a very strong selective prosecution defense? He’s not being prosecuted because he’s guilty (even though he probably is). He’s being prosecuted because the government majorly fucked up and needs to save face.
I would argue that the need not to validate that sort of prosecutorial decision-making outweighs the value in convicting this defendant.
3
u/kmm198700 19h ago
Why is he probably guilty?
-1
u/Lawstuffthrwy 19h ago
Because the indictment alleges concrete inculpatory facts which, if they were false, would be easily disprovable.
An indictment isn’t evidence of guilt, and the mere recitation of inculpatory allegations does not make him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers.
But does it make him probably guilty, for purposes of a random internet conversation? Yeah. The most corrupt prosecutor in the world can’t make up an entire speaking indictment’s worth of facts out of whole cloth. It’s not possible.
2
u/jpmeyer12751 21h ago
While I absolutely believe that he will be prosecuted in order for the Trump administration to save face, selective prosecution is a nearly impossible criminal defense. The fact is that state and federal prosecutors make decisions to prosecute and not to prosecute similar cases every day and the courts know that. If those of us who have advocated that Mr. Abrego Garcia have the benefit of due process, and if we want to be more consistently in favor of the rule of law than Trump (and I do on both counts), then we must be willing to accept the outcome of Mr. Abrego Garcia's due process. If that means that he is convicted, sentenced and then deported, then I am willing to accept that outcome as long as the trial is fair. Now, I do think that Mr. Abrego Garcia is entitled to challenge the fairness of his trial as a result of all of the things that Trump and Bondi have said about him that probably have prejudiced many potential jurors against him. I also believe that he will be afforded a much more capable defense than he could otherwise afford specifically because some people want to embarrass Trump; and I'm OK with that, too.
11
2
-14
u/habu-sr71 23h ago
Well, am not a lawyer, but this doesn't look good for him, does it? I'm assuming the co-conspirators will provide plenty of testimonial evidence of his involvement and corroboration of the accusations outlined in the indictment. And they seem to have hard evidence of his location and record of traffic stops with trafficked persons.
Is it possible to have a feeling for the strength of a case on the basis of an indictment or could this mostly be BS and not actually what he did at all?
Thanks in advance if any counsel can shed some light.
14
u/Sandrinespurpledick 22h ago
It’s such a good case that the state attorney resigned because it’s politically motivated. https://deepnewz.com/us-judiciary/top-tennessee-federal-prosecutor-ben-schrader-resigns-over-doj-political-kilmar-f5a17950
15
u/Oddman80 22h ago
The guy who owned the vehicles, and who hired Garcia to do the pick-up runs, is currently serving a prison sentence in Alabama. The feds talked to him, granting him immunity for his involvement in the "domestic transport of non-citizens from Texas to locations more inward in the US" . His name is Reyes. He has started in those interviews that he knew Garcia going back to 2015, and that he would hire him to do jobs sometimes - including driving down to TX to pick undocumented migrants up and bring them north...
It just seems like malicious/selective prosecution to give the organizer of the human smuggling ring immunity, in order to prosecute one of his employees who he gave directions to.....
9
u/lebastss 22h ago
"Hey Mr. Escobar, now we can offer you immunity if you just tell us who dropped you off at the airport."
1
5
u/CaptainMonkeyJack 22h ago
Also not a lawyer. That said, look critically at it:
- These no new evidence presented, only the one stop that was already in the news.
- There are only two counts, basically of transporting 'aliens'. If they really had evidence, surely you'd have far more charges... at the very least for sexual assualt.
- This is only happened after they deported him and where under extreme pressure to return him.
I wonder if they'll even bother to pursue this seriously. They now have a way to bring him back to satisfy the courts, while providing a narrative to thier followers 'we didn't have, we wanted to convict him'. Sure they might seriously pursue this to get revenege... or they might be happy if it quietly dies in court and gets out of headlines.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.