Attorneys representing six individuals facing federal conspiracy charges related to a protest outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview are citing new body-camera footage as evidence that challenges the government’s claims.
The defendants—Kat Abughazaleh, Michael Rabbitt, Andre Martin, Cat Sharp, Brian Straw, and Joselyn Walsh—are among the few protesters still facing federal prosecution stemming from demonstrations during last year’s Operation Midway Blitz. Since January, their lawyers have sought a court order compelling prosecutors to clarify aspects of the indictment they argue are too vague for an adequate defense or possible dismissal.
On Monday, attorneys presented screenshots and descriptions of body-camera video provided by prosecutors. They contend this material contradicts allegations that the group conspired to block an ICE supervisor attempting to drive into the facility during a protest on September 26.
One image shows Kat Abughazaleh holding a megaphone at the demonstration. According to defense attorneys’ filing: “She warned the crowd ‘that’s private property back there, come back.’ Then, speaking directly to the Broadview police officer standing next to her, Ms. Abughazaleh exclaimed, ‘You just let him run us over! … He literally just ran over my foot!’”
Defense attorneys also state that footage depicts Walsh, Martin, Rabbitt, and Sharp moving away from the vehicle independently within seconds after realizing they were in its path.
Sharp is chief of staff for Alderman Andre Vasquez (40th) and had been running for Cook County Board before suspending her campaign due to these charges. Rabbitt serves as 45th Ward Democratic committeeperson; Martin is field director for Abughazaleh’s congressional campaign. Straw has served on Oak Park’s board of trustees since 2023 and practices law. Walsh is a musician who has regularly participated in protests at Broadview.
The six were indicted in October and are scheduled for a court appearance Thursday before U.S. District Judge April Perry in Chicago. The judge is expected to rule on motions seeking public access to evidence and requiring prosecutors to provide a “bill of particulars,” which would compel more detail about their case theory.
In their recent filing, defense attorneys argue that the indictment does not sufficiently inform defendants about what elements of conspiracy under federal law are being pursued: “They said that the six ‘were unequivocally engaged in protected First Amendment activity throughout the morning’ of Sept. 26 and are ‘entitled to know whether the government will attempt to use their constitutionally protected acts of dissent against the administration’s immigration enforcement actions as criminal acts of conspiracy.’”
Attorneys also note that prosecutors have not specified when or how any alleged conspiracy began or ended: “Without such necessary details, the government’s amorphous conspiracy charge puts every single individual lawfully participating in a protest at risk for being held criminally liable for any act of another protestor,” according to their filing.
Earlier this month, prosecutors responded that further explanation was unnecessary because all relevant information had already been disclosed through discovery materials. However, defense lawyers maintain that even with body-camera footage included among those materials, ambiguity remains regarding what specific conduct constitutes alleged criminal behavior.
One image cited by defense attorneys shows Straw being pushed by another protester as an ICE supervisor drives toward him: “Mr. Straw needs to understand the government’s alleged acts it claims he undertook as part of this conspiracy,” they wrote. “Surely even the government would acknowledge that an individual cannot be literally pushed into joining a conspiracy.”
They further assert there is no evidence in either indictment or supporting materials indicating advance planning or coordination among defendants aimed at impeding agents or damaging vehicles—only references alleging other members of the crowd caused damage.
Defense counsel warns that without clearer definitions from prosecutors about when any supposed conspiracy began or ended—and exactly what it entailed—their clients face potential unfair surprises at trial: “the government would have license to morph the scope and means of the conspiracy in reaction to Defendants’ arguments.”
Meanwhile, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg stepped aside from leading prosecution after receiving an assignment with Sen. Dick Durbin’s Senate Judiciary Committee; she will not return until next year and will miss this trial set for May 26.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Fitzpatrick confirmed her withdrawal: “Ms. Mecklenburg is an experienced prosecutor who applied for and received a temporary detail within a different branch of the federal government,” Fitzpatrick said. “She is in the process of withdrawing from her active cases. We wish her the best and look forward to her returning to our Office after completing her detail.”
