Saturday Rewind: Defining down 'vindictive'
The week in review begins with reflections on a federal judge's refusal to examine whether the SPLC was vindictively prosecuted.
In back-to-back setbacks for the civil rights group, a federal judge refused to conduct an inquiry into whether the Southern Poverty Law Center had been vindictively prosecuted, and the Trump Justice Department criminally charged the group’s former employee days later.
The developments could have heavy ramifications for any criminal defendant seeking to prove being the target of a political prosecution during Donald Trump’s second term.
Consider the evidence on the SPLC’s side: Long before any trial, Trump declared the legendary civil rights group guilty on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” claiming that the criminal allegations against them were adjudicated facts. His former criminal defense attorney turned Attorney General Todd Blanche then spread misinformation about the SPLC on live TV, only to be forced to backtrack on those claims later. Former Trump election lawyer turned Associate Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon admitted to having a “personal” grudge against the SPLC and claimed the group attacked her friends.
U.S. District Judge Emily Marks, a Trump appointee, found that it would “stack speculation upon conjecture” to believe that this parade of pretrial prejudice was evidence of a plan to vindictively prosecute the SPLC.
“After filtering out the noise, the Court is left to decide only whether the Government’s decision to prosecute the SPLC was constitutionally impermissible,” Judge Marks wrote in a 36-page memorandum opinion. “On this record, the SPLC is not entitled to discovery or dismissal of the indictment.”
For the judge, the sole question was whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama brought the case for inappropriate reasons, but her ruling ignored a whistleblower report alleging that there was a pressure campaign to rush to an indictment despite “serious concerns” about its strength.
Earlier this week, All Rise News explored what this ruling means for anyone seeking to prove being the target of a politicized Trump Justice Department prosecution in a video showing the clips of what the SPLC described as the “media blitz” against them.
Successful vindictive prosecution motions are vanishingly rare, and Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s victory is perhaps the exception that proves the rule.
In the SPLC’s case, Judge Marks found that an open and shameless campaign of vilification from the top of the federal government does not even merit an investigation.
You can watch my breakdown on Legal AF's All Rise News playlist, and paid subscribers can watch the videos ad-free below.
Also featured in this week’s rewind:
* Ex-N.J. AG Matthew Platkin discusses why 56 former judges joined against Trump’s mail-in voting order.
* Ex-Jan. 6 prosecutor Brendan Ballou discusses his lawsuit on Trump’s “comically corrupt” Truth Social scheme.
* Why ex-CIA director John Brennan believes his eventual prosecution is “preordained.”
