A federal judge has delivered a scathing rebuke to the United States government, dismissing charges against a Los Angeles protester accused of assaulting a federal officer with a cloth hat. The judge's order explicitly stated that prosecutors acted in "bad faith," leading to the case being thrown out with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
Six Months in Custody Before Dismissal
Jonathon Redondo-Rosales, a 36-year-old TikTok content creator and US citizen, had been held in custody for six months awaiting trial. His arrest occurred on 2 August during a protest in downtown Los Angeles against the Trump administration's immigration policies. The charges stemmed from an encounter near a federal courthouse where Redondo-Rosales was accused of assaulting an officer from the Federal Protective Service, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security.
Discrepancies in Evidence and Testimony
In her ruling, US District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela highlighted significant inconsistencies in the government's case. Video evidence showed Redondo-Rosales standing and dancing in front of a government vehicle that made contact with him. After briefly rolling onto the car's hood, he was approached by five armed officers in full tactical gear.
The judge noted that as Officer ZC lunged toward him, Redondo-Rosales removed his sun hat, which had fallen over his face. As he moved backward, his hand holding the hat swung toward the officer, making contact. Prosecutors initially claimed Redondo-Rosales had struck the officer with a "closed fist," but later walked this back to "swatting" after defense lawyers presented video evidence contradicting the original account.
Pattern of Problematic Prosecutions
This case represents one of several Department of Justice prosecutions against individuals accused of assaulting federal immigration officers that have collapsed in courts across the United States. Judge Valenzuela's ruling exposed multiple problems with the prosecution's conduct throughout the legal proceedings.
Redondo-Rosales's attorneys discovered that Officer ZC had failed to disclose a 2021 harassment conviction in another case where he claimed to have been assaulted by a different protester. When defense lawyers requested use-of-force and personnel records for ZC and other arresting officers, prosecutors opposed these requests while simultaneously announcing they would not call ZC as a witness in the trial.
Judge's Strong Rebuke of Prosecutorial Tactics
As the trial date approached, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the case "without prejudice," arguing they needed to address an unresolved parole violation in another county. Judge Valenzuela rejected this explanation, stating the government had known about the alleged parole violation since August and had previously opposed Redondo-Rosales's request for release to address the matter.
The judge wrote that the government's argument was "plainly meritless" and "offered in bad faith." She suggested prosecutors sought dismissal to gain tactical advantage, avoiding disclosure of personnel files that might reveal misrepresentations or omissions by officers involved in the arrest.
Protecting First Amendment Rights
In her ruling, Judge Valenzuela emphasized that "the right to protest is a core first amendment protection." She warned that allowing prosecutors to re-charge Redondo-Rosales would send "a dangerous signal" that officials could respond to protest with aggressive tactics and deploy criminal charges that could be "imposed, withdrawn, and revived at the Government's discretion."
"That signal alone is sufficient to chill lawful protest," the judge continued. "The Court cannot permit a system in which prosecutorial discretion is used to impose punishment without adjudication, particularly when applied in the context of those protesting the government's activities."
Legal Community Reaction
Katherine McBroom, Redondo-Rosales's attorney, celebrated the ruling, stating: "This case is a prime example of federal prosecutors marching in lock step with the current administration's efforts to chill dissent. Mr Redondo-Rosales was lawfully protesting immigration policy when he was struck by a government vehicle and then tackled and beaten by three other officers in SWAT gear."
McBroom added that when the government realized they were likely to lose the case, they "concocted a reason to postpone the case to try to fix it." She expressed hope that the judge's clear rebuke would help others facing similar charges, emphasizing: "We cannot weaponize prosecutions to chill free speech and dissent."
Aftermath and Implications
Redondo-Rosales was released last Friday following the government's initial dismissal motion. His attorney reported he is "relieved and getting reacclimatized to being back in the community." The case has drawn attention to broader concerns about prosecutorial conduct in protest-related cases and the protection of constitutional rights during political demonstrations.
Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security and the US attorney's office in Los Angeles, which prosecuted the case, did not respond to inquiries about the ruling. Officer ZC has not been publicly identified beyond the court records.
