Crime & Law

‘Broadview Six’ Judge Says More Answers Needed About Prosecutors’ Conduct in the Botched Case

A federal judge has not yet ruled on whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate possible wrongdoing by U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ office in the “Broadview Six” case. But the judge does intend to conduct additional fact-finding into exactly what happened in the botched prosecution.

U.S. District Judge April Perry on Thursday said she needs further answers about the conduct of prosecutors in Boutros’ office before deciding whether criminal charges could be warranted.

While federal prosecutors stressed that Boutros’ office has already instituted new trainings and widespread reforms to ensure any of the “mistakes” in this case don’t happen again, Perry said that assurance now “is not very compelling.”

“With great power comes great responsibility,” Perry said, echoing a famous line coined by the Spiderman comic book series, before quoting the 7th Circuit District Court which said “The greater the power that defies the law, the less tolerant the court can be of defiance.”

“Training does not fix willful or intentional misconduct,” she said. “So institutional charges are necessary but not sufficient.”

Perry and federal attorneys on Thursday sought to wade through what appeared to be uncharted territory in Illinois' Northern District, specifically over charting the correct path forward when it comes to who could possibly investigate potential criminal misconduct within Boutros’ office and how they could go about doing so.

If Perry does opt to appoint a special prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Whalen argued any such counsel would have to report to the U.S. Attorney General.

Perry pushed back on that notion, while attorney Chris Parente, who represents Oak Park Village Board Trustee Brian Straw, said that appointing such a person would essentially allow the feds to investigate themselves.

He claimed any special prosecutor would have to be someone from outside Boutros’ office, such as a former federal prosecutor or someone else “outside of DOJ’s control.”

Because the proceedings are no longer adversarial in nature — the criminal charges have all been dismissed — Perry on Thursday did appoint William Baude, a legal professor at the University of Chicago, to provide an opposing position under the title of an “amicus.”

Attorneys for the former defendants lauded Perry's decision Thursday.

“I think the message that has been sent is that no one is above the law,” Parente said after the hearing. “Now the court will make sure she gets the answers she deserves about whether Mr. Boutros and his employees were honest with the court. And I would submit to you, that everything we have seen indicates they were not honest with the court.”

How the Prosecution Fell Apart

Prosecutors alleged the Broadview defendants were part of a group that surrounded a government vehicle last September, “with the intent to hinder and impede” a federal agent from proceeding to the facility and “discharging the duties of his office.” 

According to the initial indictment, the protesters “banged aggressively” on the vehicle’s windows and hood and broke one of its mirrors and a rear windshield wiper.

But after unsealed transcripts from the grand jury proceedings in that case revealed Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg allegedly excused skeptical grand jurors, admitted speaking with grand jurors outside of the hearings and “vouched” for the merits of the allegations against the defendants, the case fell apart and was ultimately dropped in May.

In her three-page resignation letter, which has since been made public, Mecklenburg said she was retiring “under protest” as she sought to defend herself against misconduct accusations including that she “outright lied” to the grand jury — a claim she denies.

That came after Mecklenburg alleged she was informed by Boutros’ office that she would be disciplined or terminated if she sought leave to join the case on her own.

Mecklenburg said that while she has remained silent since the case collapsed, defense attorneys for the former defendants have made additional “false and inflammatory accusations” that Boutros’ office “has not rebutted and apparently has no intention of rebutting.”

She called herself a “convenient target” to be “scapegoated and publicly vilified” and said Boutros’ comments in court that acknowledged Mecklenburg’s alleged misconduct came without fully reviewing the record or “asking me for my account.”

“This is not a voluntary departure,” she wrote. “You have forced me to choose between remaining silent while my professional reputation is destroyed and prematurely surrendering my cherished career. I choose the latter.”

Defense attorneys agree that Mecklenburg should be allowed to intervene in the case, claiming she has material evidence about the manner in which Boutros’ office handled the case that could aid in their request for a special prosecutor.

They point to Mecklenburg’s claims in her letter that she repeatedly sought guidance from Boutros’ front office and followed their directions at “every consequential stage” of the case.

Perry on Thursday granted Mecklenburg's motion to intervene.

Boutros denied knowing of Mecklenburg’s alleged misconduct until late April, but defense attorneys have since accused the U.S. Attorney of a cover-up amid their longstanding belief that the charges were politically motivated.

The prosecution came amid the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” immigration enforcement effort. As part of the federal government's massive deportation effort, immigration agents descended on the Chicago area last fall to conduct aggressive raids leading to frequent protests and confrontations with community members. 

Attorneys for the six former defendants — Straw, former 9th District congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh, her campaign staffer Andre Martin, Democratic Committeeperson Michael Rabbitt, ex-Cook County Board candidate Catherine Sharp and musician Joselyn Walsh — argued in legal filings that the case was “poisoned from the start” and that Boutros’ office has sought to “draw a curtain around this unfortunate episode.”

Parente on Thursday said that while Boutros' office is the chief law enforcement agency, but if they're not "following the rules, how can they enforce the rules against anybody?”

“(Perry) is going to find out the truth about what happened," he said. "And if Andrew Boutros or any of his employees lied to the court, she will discover it and she will punish them, just like every day that they go into those courtrooms, they ask her to punish the people that we typically represent.”

---