Rachel Moran, professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, spoke with local media about the investigation into two ICE agents accused of making untruthful statements under oath in connection with a January shooting in north Minneapolis. After video evidence contradicted the agents’ initial claims that they were assaulted, federal prosecutors moved to dismiss charges against two men who had been accused of attacking officers. Moran noted that similar cases have followed a pattern in which early official statements are later undermined by evidence, raising broader concerns about accountability and public trust.
From KSTP:
... Critics say this is following a pattern seen all too often involving federal officials.
“We have seen a lot of claims by federal agents when they’ve engaged in violence where they say it’s justified and the evidence proves otherwise,” said Rachel Moran, law professor at the University of St. Thomas.
A day after the shooting, this is what Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had to say.
“Last night what we saw was three individuals weaponize shovels and brooms and attack an ICE officer that had to defend himself.”
At the time, neighbors disputed what DHS said, which led to charges against the two men.
“This is really becoming a pattern,” Moran said.
From FOX 9:
... The FOX 9 Investigators reviewed more than 100 cases involving the assault of federal officers, which revealed in a majority of cases, federal prosecutors either declined to file charges, later dismissed them due to “insufficient evidence” or failed to convince a grand jury that a crime was committed.
“When somebody other than the agents has to look at evidence and decide whether an assault happened, in the vast majority of situations, they’re deciding, no, there’s no evidence of an assault,” said Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas.
In one case, a federal judge in Chicago wrote that the government “swung and missed – multiple times.”
