Wearing all black clothing and face masks. Putting phones in a bag meant to prevent them from being tracked. Protesting outside a "prison" at 10 p.m. on July 4.
Federal prosecutors say those facts and more from the night of the Prairieland ICE detention center shooting indicate the nine defendants on trial weren’t there to peacefully protest.
Now, a Fort Worth federal jury will begin their deliberations in the trial after both prosecutors and defense finished with closing arguments Wednesday.
Nine people are on trial for allegedly playing a role in the nonfatal shooting of Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross outside the ICE facility July 4. For two weeks the government put forward evidence and witnesses to prove the defendants shared an anti-fascist, anti-ICE and anti-government ideology also known as “antifa” that motivated them.
The government says it’s the first case targeting an “antifa cell.” Experts say the outcome could determine the playbook for how the Trump administration targets alleged left-wing violence.
Defendants maintain the event was meant to be a noise demonstration with fireworks in support of those inside Prairieland, and violence was never the intention. They’ve asserted throughout the trial that antifa is an ideology, not an organization of which they were a part.
Defense attorneys chose not to put forth any evidence or witnesses to make their point. Cody Cofer, attorney for defendant Autumn Hill, said that's because the defense trusts the jury and doesn't feel the need to drag the case on.
"The government spent two whole weeks telling witnesses what to say, and you what to think," Cofer told the jury during closing arguments.
But for the first time, jurors heard argument at length from the attorney for Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter in the case.
Song's attorney Phillip Hayes didn’t take part in opening statements. Instead he reserved his time for until he presented Song's individual case — something he also ultimately didn't do.
However, during closing arguments, Hayes said Americans have a First Amendment right to protest and a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
"If we have a right and we can't use it, it's not much of a right,” he said.
Early in the trial, Judge Mark Pittman ruled Hayes and the rest of the defendants weren't allowed to argue the shooting was in self-defense.
But Hayes still implied in his closing that the alleged shooter likely saw Gross pointing his gun at someone else as soon as the officer arrived at Prairieland and had a split-second to decide what to do.
Hayes said he was personally sorry Gross was shot, and he doesn't hate or fear police — but, "that doesn't mean everything they do is right."
Hayes also argued Song may have fired at the ground, not the officer. An investigator testified earlier in the trial that the tip of the only bullet recovered from the scene was curved, meaning it slowed down quickly upon impact.
That evidence — as well as closed circuit TV footage that showed dust clouds rise up at the moment of the shooting — could mean the bullet from whoever fired ricocheted, Hayes argued.
The defense also threw barbs at cooperating defendant Nathan Baumann throughout closing arguments. Baumann, 20, testified Monday he decided on his own to spray paint and damage vehicles in the Prairieland parking lot, but he said Zachary Evetts joined him, breaking a surveillance camera and slashing the tires on an ICE vehicle.
The destruction of government property contributes to other defendants' charges. Defense attorneys argued Baumann's testimony couldn't be trusted because he admitted to falsely blaming someone else for the spray paint when he was arrested and may not have been telling the truth about Evetts slashing the tires.
"The government sponsored this liar as their witness," said Brian Bouffard, one of Evetts' attorneys.
The prosecution’s case
There's no federal criminal statute to charge people for domestic terrorism like there is for foreign terrorism, according to legal experts. The government doesn’t have to prove antifa is an established terrorist organization in this case.
The evidence jurors heard about antifa is important, Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Smith said in his closing arguments, but their alleged antifa beliefs are not why they're on trial.
"They're here because they used these tactics that assisted in the ambush of a cop," Smith said.
Using Signal chat messages and political materials the defendants owned, Smith painted a picture for jurors of Song, who was "clearly the ringleader," working with his inner circle or "affinity group" to stage a confrontation with law enforcement July 4.
Those who helped Song hide from law enforcement have pleaded guilty and testified during trial. Smith argued Song's other alleged co-conspirators on trial — Autumn Hill, Meagan Morris, Zachary Evetts and Maricela Rueda — should be found guilty of attempted murder because of a legal doctrine called Pinkerton liability.
The principle allows other defendants to be considered guilty for one person's actions if others could have reasonably foreseen the crime happening.
"They know — or at least they should have known — what Song was going to do," Smith said.
Elizabeth Soto, Ines Soto and Savanna Batten were known as members of the Emma Goldman Book Club, a group that discusses anarchist literature. Smith said that name was a front for the trio operating as Antifa DFW, as evidenced by their social media accounts and their zines, or homemade booklets.
Their anti-government beliefs motivated them to maliciously shoot fireworks at Prairieland, Smith argued.
Daniel Sanchez Estrada was not at Prairieland and is accused of trying to conceal a box of "insurrectionary" materials at the direction of his wife, defendant Maricela Rueda, while she was in jail. This was part of the group's real-world operational security, or "opsec," Smith said.
"What's important to the group is hiding this material," he said. "This insurrectionary, anarchist, hating-the-government material."
The charges
The defendants face a number of charges, but they don't all face the same charges. The jury must reach a unanimous verdict on each count for every defendant.
Hill, Song, Batten, Morris, Rueda, Evetts, Elizabeth Soto and Ines Soto are charged with rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive and use and carry of an explosive — the explosive being fireworks.
Song is also charged with three counts attempted murder of officers and employees of the United States and three counts discharging a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence. Hill, Evetts, Morris and Rueda are charged alongside him for aiding and abetting.
Sanchez Estrada is charged with corruptly concealing a document or record. He and Rueda are charged with conspiracy to conceal documents.
Song, Hill, Evetts, Morris, and Rueda could face anywhere from 10 years to life in federal prison if convicted, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas. Batten and the Sotos face 10-50 years in prison. Sanchez Estrada faces up to 20 years in federal prison on each count.
Attorneys emphasized the jury should consider each person's alleged actions separately.
Sanchez Estrada's attorney Chris Weinbel argued moving the box from Garland to a friend's apartment in Denton had nothing to do with Rueda.
"How much are we going to change this to fit a narrative that doesn't exist?" Weinbel said during his closing argument.
Blake Burns, Elizabeth Soto's attorney, said the government was attempting to send protesters to prison as terrorists.
"That's not something that's happened before," Burns told jurors. "You guys are the only people on Earth that can stop that from happening."
Public support
Throughout the trial, family, friends and other supporters held their own noise demonstrations for the defendants and gathered outside the courthouse with signs and tables with zines.
At a small protest outside the federal courthouse Wednesday, some worried the outcome of the case could have broader implications for political activism.
Brian Mendez with the Partisan Defense Committee, a legal and social defense organization, called the trial "a touchstone case for everyone who wants to exercise their democratic rights in the United States."
Abigail Davis says she doesn't know the defendants personally but wanted to support them.
“I think that the charges are really silly,” Davis said. “I'm hoping that the jury members are seeing through some of the kind of trumped up charges.”
Elisabet Westbye, another supporter, echoed that sentiment.
“The jury will see the charges are ridiculous,” said Westbye said. “Was there vandalism? Yeah, I'm not gonna argue that one for a second. But you have a right to gather. You have a rights to protest.”
Got a tip? Email Toluwani at tosibamowo@kera.org and Dylan Duke at dduke@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
