Inside ICE Protest Trials in Los Angeles

John is joined by Rebecca Abel, Supervising Deputy Federal Public Defender, and Kyra Nickell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, both with the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender's Office. They discuss the wave of criminal cases arising from protests in Los Angeles against immigration enforcement actions. Rebecca and Kyra offer their own insights and do not speak on behalf of the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender's Office.

The government has filed more than seventy criminal cases in Los Angeles against protesters, most alleging felony assault on a federal officer. The cases generally stem from confrontations during demonstrations near federal facilities, where protesters, journalists, or bystanders are accused of physical contact with officers. These cases have gone to trial or been dismissed at a much higher rate than usual for the federal criminal dockets. Remarkably, each of the first six trials handled by the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender’s Office has ended in an acquittal.

One case involved a photographer who had been documenting a protest outside the Metropolitan Detention Center after photographing demonstrators at a nearby Home Depot. He was charged with felony assault on a federal officer based on allegations that he touched an officer with his camera and then pushed the officer with his hand. At trial, the government relied mainly on testimony from the complaining officer and a supervisor, along with limited, distant, or incomplete video footage.

The defense located additional witnesses and video, including independent journalists and protesters who had recorded the event from closer angles. The complaining officer testified that he was trying to create space between himself and the photographer when the photographer struck him. However, the defense introduced video evidence that contradicted the complaining officer’s testimony. The video showed the officer moved rapidly toward the photographer, that any contact between the camera and the officer’s face was incidental, and that the photographer’s later hand movement came only after the officer slapped the camera and advanced toward him. The defense argued that the physical contact was in self-defense rather than an assault.

The jury deliberated for about five hours and asked for a rereading of the defendant’s testimony that he had been frightened and confused, suggesting that they were focused on the self-defense claim. The acquittal underscored the weakness of the evidence in this case and the unusual pattern emerging in these protest prosecutions.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn 
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Transcript

Note: This transcript is generated from a recorded conversation and may contain errors or omissions. It has been edited for clarity but may not fully capture the original intent or context. For accurate interpretation, please refer to the original audio. 

JOHN QUINN: This is John Quinn. This is Law, disrupted, and as the world knows, there have been protests across the United States about the actions of the immigrations and customs service ICE, in many cities, including in Los Angeles. And the many of these protests have resulted in federal criminal charges being brought against protestors.

Some 70 cases criminal cases have been brought against protestors in Los Angeles alone, and today we're gonna be talking to two public defenders from the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office. They have tried six cases in a row with Acquittals in every case, which is extremely unusual. We're speaking with Rebecca Abel, who's a supervisor in the Federal public Defender's office in Los Angeles, as well as Kyra Nickell, who's a public defender in that office.

And first, can you give us some kind of idea of the scope of the kinds of criminal prosecutions, the number of criminal prosecutions they're being brought? As a result against people involved in protesting actions by ICE and other enforcement authorities? 

REBECCA ABEL: Sure. This is Rebecca Abel. There have been over 70 prosecutions against people involved in or related to the protests of the current administration's immigration and our office represents the vast majority of those. 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, is this the number of prosecutions brought, are these, is this unusual in your experience or not unusual? I mean, how would you characterize this? 

REBECCA ABEL: I've been with the office for eight years and I would, I have never seen this number or type of charge be brought.

The vast majority of these defendants are charged with assault on a federal officer, and historically we've seen some of those charges, but year to year, a relatively small number and nowhere near in the seventies. 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, are the, is it unusual that the government would actually bring these charges and then bring the cases to trial?

I mean, you've tried a number of these cases now. 

REBECCA ABEL: Certainly it's unusual that this number would go to trial. I think that the nature and content of the cases and the evidence offered is not comparable to ones that we've seen historically and so there's more opportunity for these cases to be tried.

JOHN QUINN: Can you generalize about what a typical fact pattern is in these cases? Recognizing that each case is different, but then can you generalize about what happened, what the underlying facts are. 

REBECCA ABEL: As you said it is hard to generalize, but sort of big picture, these cases arise often in the context of a protest where citizens have gathered to speak out against immigration policies and federal agents have responded to those protests.

And then an interaction occurs between a protestor or journalist present at that event and one of the officers, and as a result of that interaction, the protestor or journalist is then charged with a crime, most often assault on a federal officer. 

JOHN QUINN: And are these cases, are they typically bargained out?

I know in the criminal world, generally, very, very few cases go to trial. Usually there's a offer of a plea and a plea is accepted, or the case is dismissed at some point. What’s happening with these cases? 

REBECCA ABEL: Some have gotten dismissed either by the government or by the court, some have pled guilty, and some have gone to trial.

I would, speaking generally, I would say that a greater number appear to either be going to trial or getting dismissed than an average group of 70 prosecutions that we see in this district. Much higher numbers are going to trial and obtaining dismissals. 

JOHN QUINN: You say some of the dismissals are just made by the court, and the court finds that there isn't grounds to take a case to trial or what?

REBECCA ABEL: There's been a variety of reasons for dismissals, so I couldn't generalize there, but there have been a lot of grounds for defense counsel to move for dismissal and courts have found them to be persuasive. And then of course there's also been dismissals by the government as well, were there requesting the dismissal themselves. 

JOHN QUINN: In general, what is the type of conduct that the government alleges that these, the individuals charged, engaged in? What are the kinds of things that government says that these defendants did. 

REBECCA ABEL: I think that's very hard to generalize. I can speak about our case certainly and what they alleged that our client Isaiah Lopez did.

But and I, and I've had another one, but there a touching of some kind. I, you know, sometimes a minor touching, most of the ones that I have seen go to trial to date have been a minor touching of some kind. 

JOHN QUINN: So in other words, the government alleged that a federal officer was doing their duty and a protestor came in contact with them in some fashion, essentially.

REBECCA ABEL: Yes. 

JOHN QUINN: And criminal charges resulted? 

REBECCA ABEL: Yes. 

JOHN QUINN: And how many of these cases has your office taken to trial? 

REBECCA ABEL: So far, six. And we expect several more in the coming months. 

JOHN QUINN: Does the government seem to have taken a more aggressive stance in terms of not entering into plea bargains and taking these cases to trial?

Hard to say? 

REBECCA ABEL: Yeah. I'm trying to think. I can't, I can't say, yeah, I can't say, I think often too, plea negotiations are just dependent of course, on what is offered, but also on whether our clients accept them. And so, I think that in these cases, often there isn't a plea agreement that would be available or possible in some of these cases.

JOHN QUINN: I mean, before we started this podcast, you told me that it was important to make clear that you were not speaking for the office or, you were just giving your own personal insights into what happened in the cases that you were involved with. 

REBECCA ABEL: Yes. I am not speaking on behalf of the Federal Public Defender's office, and neither is my colleague.

I think we are representing our own views and experience based on what we've seen. 

JOHN QUINN: And the Los Angeles Times article that I saw that led me to want to talk to you, it said that you had tried six of these cases, and obtained acquittal in all six. 

REBECCA ABEL: That's right. 

JOHN QUINN: And that's in the criminal defense world, that's pretty unusual to, I think something like one or 2% of all criminal prosecutions nationally end up in acquittals or something like that.

REBECCA ABEL: I can't speak to the national numbers, but certainly in, you know, my personal experience there's many, many cases that don't go to trial at all. And of the few that do, we don't always obtain full not guilty verdicts. Although our office has a tremendous record of taking good cases to trial and getting acquittals of those six, I personally participated in two.

And I think that in those two cases, getting an acquittal was the right outcome. 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, it is kind of unusual in your experience to have six acquittals in a row in criminal cases. 

REBECCA ABEL: Certainly when they're all of the same type. I have never had, we've not had six cases that in my time at the office of very similar fact patterns ever go to trial like this.

Usually our cases are quite diverse and raise different sets of issues and charge very different offenses. These six were remarkably similar and in the nature and type of charge and the conduct that was alleged, and so to achieve acquittal in six relatively similar cases is extremely unusual. I have not seen that before. 

JOHN QUINN: So these cases, obviously as they are in our country where tried to juries, the jury's heard all the evidence and returned acquittals six times in a row against the government, the cases that you handled? 

REBECCA ABEL: Yes. 

JOHN QUINN: Well let's to put some flesh on the bones here, let's talk about one case that was highlighted in the press involving your client, Isaiah Lopez, who I guess was the sixth acquittal that you achieved after trial. And as I understand it, you were involved with Rebecca in this trial. 

KYRA NICKELL: Yes, I was involved in this case. Typically one attorney appears at that initial appearance of the client and when it seems like a case is going towards trial, then we will add a second attorney to assist with the trial, and to help build up the defense question, witnesses locate evidence and present the evidence at trial. So Rebecca asked me to join the case and I was happy to tag on and work on this case to represent Mr. Lopez. 

JOHN QUINN: And what was it that the government alleged that Mr. Lopez had done? 

KYRA NICKELL: In this case, Mr. Lopez was charged with a one count felony indictment of assault on a federal officer. 

JOHN QUINN: Charging that a felony, that's not, I assume that's not every day in cases like this; were all these cases that you tried felony charges?

REBECCA ABEL: It's a mix. The vast majority were felonies, but the other one I tried was ultimately charged as a misdemeanor. But actually most of the six are felonies. 

JOHN QUINN: Okay. And what was the felonious conduct that the government alleged that Mr. Lopez had engaged in? 

KYRA NICKELL: Mr. Lopez was accused of two separate touchings. The first being making contact with the federal officer with his camera that he was holding in his hands. And then the second with using his left hand to push the federal officer. 

JOHN QUINN: Let’s set the stage here. Where did this take place? What was going on? Were there a lot of people?

Was this a protest, a lot of people confronting ice officers or what was the setting here? 

REBECCA ABEL: So this occurred behind the Metropolitan Detention Center, which is a federal bureau of Prisons facility in downtown LA. It houses and detains our clients primarily both those charged with criminal offenses and immigrants brought in by accused of being in the country illegally. So because it is a place where immigrants are detained, it is also a place of protest for those protesting those policies and has been a place of protest since June approximately of 2025. And on that evening, on August 8th, 2025, there was a protest that had started at a Home Depot a couple of blocks down the road, to protest immigrants being detained at that Home Depot, and that was marching from that Home Depot to the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown LA. 

JOHN QUINN: And so Mr. Lopez was charged with, I guess, coming in contact with a federal officer with his camera and then pushing an officer with his hand. Is that essentially what the charge was? 

REBECCA ABEL: Yes, he was, he's a photographer, Mr. Lopez. He originally started at that Home Depot I described, photographing the protestors and their signage and their speeches, their gathering. And then, he drove from the Home Depot to the Metropolitan Detention Center to capture the protest and the march arriving.

So he, when he arrived at the MDC, which is Metropolitan Detention Center, he was there with a couple dozen protestors gathered along Alameda Street, which is a main thoroughfare behind the MDC. And he was photographing art and signs on the wall, people who were gathered, and then he saw a small group gathered in a plaza at the back of the MDC along the sidewalk.

He crosses the street to photograph the officers who had exited the building and the incident was alleged to have occurred while he was photographing those officers. 

JOHN QUINN: So, Kyra, how long was the trial? 

KYRA NICKELL: The trial was about a week long from start to finish. 

JOHN QUINN: And who were the witnesses who testified?

KYRA NICKELL: I believe there were seven witnesses in total. The government presented two witnesses and the defense ended up presenting five witnesses. 

JOHN QUINN: I assume the government's witnesses were other government officials who were on the scene who testified they saw him come in contact with the officer with his camera in his left hand, basically two government witnesses corroborating that.

KYRA NICKELL: Yes. So the two government witnesses, the first was the, the complaint officer named in the indictment who was testifying that he was physically contacted by Mr. Lopez. The second was his supervising officer at the scene for the defense, we had five witnesses that we presented. Two of them were journalists on the scene, and two of them were protestors there that night.

And the fifth one was the client. 

JOHN QUINN: And the testimony of the defense witnesses was what, basically that this didn't happen? Or what did they, what did they testify to? 

KYRA NICKELL: The two journalist witnesses testified as to the videos that they recorded. One of them was a credentialed journalist who had recorded part of the incident.

The other was an independent journalist who captured the entire incident on unobstructed between the officer named in the indictment, and Mr. Lopez, and that showed evidence inconsistent with the testimony from that officer on direct. As far as for the other two protestors who testified they were testifying as to their experiences.

REBECCA ABEL: So the two protestors that testified were both witnesses to the incident. One was standing just a few feet from where it occurred and was a direct witness to the incident and testified contrary to what the complaining witness testified to. And so they were all percipient witnesses, some of whom recorded video and some of whom were just percipient witnesses, and then of course, our client who testified as to his experience.

JOHN QUINN: So the jury had the benefit of two videos that showed the incident. Is that right? 

REBECCA ABEL: Yeah. The government presented two videos. They presented some surveillance footage from the federal building that was quite far away and had no audio. And then they presented a YouTube video that they had found that captured the incident sort of from an angle and from quite a distance.

And so it was pretty obscured and that was the only video evidence that the government presented the defense team, and highlighting in particular the amazing work of our investigator went out and found, other witnesses, protestors and journalists who had captured the incident from other angles.

And there were about two dozen people there. 

And we spoke to as many as we could find, and they, we were able to get ourselves five other videos that captured the incident from other angles, other portions of the incident that were not captured by any of the government videos, and in particular, one of the independent journalists that Kyra mentioned, captured the incident completely unobstructed and showed from quite a close angle exactly the interaction between our client, Mr. Lopez and the complaining witness. 

And that video really demonstrated many inconsistencies between what he had testified to in direct examination and what actually occurred.

JOHN QUINN: So, did the video show that he actually had not made contact with the officer with his camera or his hand, or what, was it pretty clear? 

REBECCA ABEL: So the charge was or the way the government presented the case was, was two alleged touchings. One was as our client, Mr. Lopez was photographing other officers, the complaining witness came up to him from, from off to the side at a fast pace and stood right in front of him. 

And he alleged that in that moment our client had hit him, the complaining witness in his nose with the camera. And the video really showed that to the extent there was any contact between the lens of his camera and the complaining witness's nose that the contact was entirely unintentional. And if it occurred at all, it occurred because the officer literally just walked into him. And the video really demonstrated that, that there was, there was no movement by Mr. Lopez that would have caused the contact.

And then the second alleged interaction occurred after that, and, and I wanna break this down a little bit, so after the alleged nose touching, our client immediately begins backing up at quite a pace toward the street, toward the sidewalk, and the officer encroaches on him, moves quite quickly toward him, raises up his arm, starts yelling, get that camera out of my face.

And as he's yelling that, the officer uses his right hand and slaps Mr. Lopez and his camera out of his hands. That interaction was not described accurately by the officer on direct and in fact quite glossed over. And the video really demonstrated that the slap occurred and the effect that that slap had on Mr. Lopez. Following that slap as Mr. Lopez continues to back up, he raises his left arm and push pushes back on the officer's kevlar vest to give himself some space to protect himself and to prevent further attack by the officer. 

And so the video also clearly showed that interaction and demonstrated that the second contact was in self defense.

JOHN QUINN: I assume you were able to get this video as a result of work done by your investigators. 

REBECCA ABEL: Yes, yes. And the witnesses who testified for the defense, which again were journalists and protestors were fully available to the government. If the government wanted to subpoena the witnesses who were present and obtain their videos, they could have, they did not do that, and we did not want to go to trial with only a fraction of the truth when we knew and they knew that there was video evidence available that could be collected. And so we took the necessary steps to collect it. 

JOHN QUINN: I mean, did the government, see, I don't, I'm not familiar with the criminal, you know, pretrial disclosure process. I know there's such a thing as Brady, and if the government has exculpatory information, they have to turn it over to the defense.

I assume there isn't a parallel rule on the defense side that if you have information that shows the witness is not guilty, you're not obligated to disclose that to the government. 

REBECCA ABEL: In criminal cases, the defense has much more limited disclosure obligations that arise only in certain circumstances.

In this case in particular, we did not disclose and did not need to disclose the video evidence that we had until trial. 

JOHN QUINN: So the first time the government saw those videos that showed what you described was at trial in the courtroom, is that true? 

REBECCA ABEL: Including upon Kyra's masterful cross-examination of the complaining witness?

Yes.

JOHN QUINN: Kyra, tell us about that cross-examination of the complaining witness. 

KYRA NICKELL: Yes. So the cross-examination was really focused on highlighting the inconsistencies in his testimony compared to the direct video evidence that we were able to locate. On direct examination, he had testified to a couple things that were quite inconsistent with the video, such as he had testified that he had pushed the client to, or pushed Mr. Lopez to create distance, when the video very clearly showed him slapping the camera down and not trying to create any distance. 

He also was shown in the video, the officer quickly advancing Mr. Lopez and forcing Mr. Lopez to take steps backwards. So that was also inconsistent with his direct testimony that he was trying to create distance between himself and Mr. Lopez. Another part of his testimony, he had stated that he saw Mr. Lopez positioning his camera within millimeters of other officer's faces from the video.

It was very clear that it was nowhere near millimeters. It was in fact at least a foot or two away from other officer's faces. So that was also inconsistent with his direct testimony. He also testified that the client, Mr. Lopez had said the words, ‘fuck you’ prior to Mr. Lopez raising his left arm to distance between himself and the officer, but on the video that was not captured at all or substantiated from any of the angles that captured the incident.

It was nice to have video evidence that we sometimes don't have at trial to highlight the inconsistencies in the witness's testimony and it's direct proof rather than it's just direct proof to show that this person was perhaps not giving the full account or may have misremembered the event.

JOHN QUINN: So you had the, you were able to cross examine the complaining witness and elicit testimony. You elicited testimony, which you knew when you heard it was gonna be inconsistent with the video that you were gonna play in defense. 

KYRA NICKELL: That's right, yes. 

JOHN QUINN: That's an enviable position to be in.

KYRA NICKELL: Yes. Yeah. It's something that was definitely nice to have when we were listening to him on direct to queue up what we were gonna question for cross-examination. 

JOHN QUINN: Is it, how long was the jury out? 

REBECCA ABEL: It's hard to say just because it wasn't consistent hours, but I think it was about five or six hours.

Kyra, does that sound right to you? 

KYRA NICKELL: I believe so, yes. Yeah, around five or five hours or so. 

JOHN QUINN: And did you feel pretty confident at the close of the evidence that you would get an acquittal here or you just never know? 

REBECCA ABEL: Our client testified and he had testified to all of the facts we just said, but in particular his feelings and his reaction to the situation and his belief that he needed to act in self-defense.

During deliberations, the jury asked for read back of his testimony, and particularly the portion of his testimony where he had stated that he was scared and confused in those few seconds. And so when they asked for that read back, we were hopeful because they had listened carefully, they had known that he had said those words and that they were focused on them.

And so we had hoped that they had reached the self-defense question, which of course was key to our defense. We never have any belief ahead of time that we're going to win or lose. We kind of go in as an open slate so that we don't prejudge any case or any jury. Federal juries in particular are very good at remaining stone faced, so we rarely know how they're gonna go.

But that jury question, gave us some hope. 

JOHN QUINN: So just to wrap up this, the discussion of this trial, Kyra, what will you remember most about this trial and this whole experience of this Mr. Lopez's case? 

KYRA NICKELL: I think a big takeaway from this trial, and I think this applies even just to this work generally, is just the large amount of camaraderie we have, particularly in this office when we go to trial, but then also I think just with having these back to back trials of a particular type of case, go again and again, having the support of our wonderful support staff and our other trial attorneys in the office is something that I really value and has given me such appreciation that I do this work with all my colleagues that I work with, who are incredibly talented, who I learn from each and every day.

And it wouldn't have been possible if not for all of our support staff and friends.

JOHN QUINN: In these 70 criminal prosecutions arising outta these protests and other events in Los Angeles, these 70 criminal cases that government has brought, have they obtained any convictions? 

REBECCA ABEL: I don't think we can speak on that.

I just don't know. I honestly don't know. There are many that are not represented. There are some, I should say, that are not represented by our office. And so I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not aware of any. 

JOHN QUINN: Yeah, you're not aware of any. And in the cases that your office, the federal public defenders in Los Angeles has defended, there haven't been any convictions?

REBECCA ABEL: Not in a row. Not in some cases, no. 

JOHN QUINN: That's pretty amazing and very, very rare. So Congratulations, I wanna congratulate you both on your defense of Mr. Lopez and the important work that the Office of the Federal Office of Federal Public Defenders is doing, and in Mr. Lopez's case in particular. 

This is John Quinn and this has been Law, disrupted.

Thank you for listening to Law, disrupted with me, John Quinn. If you enjoyed the show, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on your chosen podcast app. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, you can sign up for email alerts at our website, law-disrupted fm, or follow me on X at JB Q Law or at Quinn Emanuel.

Thank you for tuning in.