Legal experts say the charges against Afghanistan war veteran Bajun Mavalwalla II mark an escalation in the Trump administration’s crackdown on first amendment rights

The arrest of a US army veteran who protested against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has raised alarms among legal experts and fellow veterans familiar with his service in Afghanistan.

Bajun Mavalwalla II – a former army sergeant who survived a roadside bomb blast on a special operations mission in Afghanistan – was charged in July with “conspiracy to impede or injure officers” after joining a demonstration against federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in Spokane, Washington.

Legal experts say the case marks an escalation in the administration’s attacks on first amendment rights. Afghanistan war veterans who know him say the case against Mavalwalla appears unjust.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    6 days ago

    Don’t count on it. They got the indictment which means enough jurors thought it more likely than not that he did it. Remember the charge is “conspiracy to impede or injure officers.” To prove this all they need is a social media post between protestors before the fact saying that they were going to block the drive way. That would, I suspect, constitute impeding the officers. This is a really stupid arrest, but unless some jurors just flat out refuse to convict, this guy could spend real time in jail.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      6 days ago

      A reminder that Grand Juries indict 99.99999% of the time. To the point where the multiple grand Juries that refused to indict the guy that threw the sandwich at ICE officers was actually newsworthy.

      They aren’t there to determine whether it is likely someone did something, just whether the charges are even minimally plausible.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        15·
        6 days ago

        They also generally only hear what the prosecution wants them to hear. If you only hear one side of the story, then it’s easy to err on that side.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        6 days ago

        Regular juries asses whether the charges are “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Grand juries have a different standard of, “more likely than not.” The prosecutors in this case convinced enough of the grand jury that he 'more likely than not commuted the crime. Not sure how you meant “minimally plausible” but those are the standards the courts use.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          3·
          6 days ago

          The standard for a grand jury is probable cause, not more likely than not. Civil court is preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), and criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.