Defense Case is Vindicated by Testimony from Multiple Cooperating Witnesses, as Prosecution Prepares to Call Controversial Expert Witness on “Antifa”
FORT WORTH, TX – Defendants in the landmark Prairieland trial were vindicated by testimony from cooperating state witnesses over the past three days, in a case that stems from a noise demonstration at the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025. The prosecution called to the stand multiple defendants who have taken cooperating plea deals, affirming many of the defense’s key arguments about the case. The cooperating witnesses clearly stated that the noise demonstration was intended to show solidarity with those detained at the Prairieland facility, and not to enact violence, as the state has claimed. The witnesses also reiterated that defendants were not part of a unified group, let alone a terrorist organization. Their testimony also highlighted how conditions inside the jail created intense pressure to accept plea bargains, rather than a genuine admission of guilt.
Cooperating defendant Lynette Sharp’s testimony overwhelmingly strengthened the defense’s case, even though she was called as a witness by the federal government. On Thursday, Sharp continued her testimony from the previous day, when she began to cry while identifying the defendants in the courtroom, stating that they were “her friends,” and “[she] love[d] them.” In a major revelation, Sharp agreed with the defense that no one that night intended to hurt a police officer and instead stated, “From my understanding, it was a noise demo.”
Sharp further testified—contrary to the government’s allegations—that she was not a member of “antifa,” and that the left-wing reading group, the Emma Goldman Book Club, which several defendants allegedly attended, was not used to recruit individuals into “antifa.”
One of the most notable aspects of Sharp’s testimony came when she revealed she had not written the statement of facts corresponding to her guilty plea. When asked by defense attorney Phillip Hayes why Sharp signed her plea, she explained that, “First they gave me ‘accessory after the fact.’ It was a very scary, confusing process. I was held in a facility with no medical care, and I felt I would die there,” indicating a significant level of duress.
Sharp agreed with Hayes’s assertion that she was offered to sign the deal or be indicted. As Sharp was describing her lack of sleep, the abuses she faced in Johnson County Jail, and the pressure she felt to speak with investigators, presiding US District Court Judge Mark Pittman abruptly halted the proceedings and ordered the Jury to be removed from the courtroom. Once the court was cleared, Judge Pittman then asked if Sharp’s attorney would like to speak to her client about her testimony, and the pair left the courtroom.
The second cooperating defendant to take the stand, Seth Sikes, also gave testimony that strongly aligned with the defense’s characterization of the demonstration. Sikes discussed the presence of firearms that night as a defensive tactic that, to his understanding, was largely meant to deter violence from counter protesters. Sikes also described radioing to others that “it was time to leave,” when corrections officers began approaching, contradicting the government’s narrative that there was a plan to attack the officers.
The prosecution is expected to call Kyle Shideler to the stand today as their expert witness on “antifa.”
Shideler is a Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at Center for Security Policy, one of the country’s leading anti-Muslim think tanks that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Povery Law Center. During the first Trump administration, Center for Security Policy came under scrutiny for their far-right and anti-Muslim bias and bigotry after the organization issued a questionable report, claiming that “Sharia law” was the biggest domestic threat to the United States. These claims have since been widely criticized by mainstream and progressive experts as exaggerated and inaccurate. Shideler also has spent significant time in other right-wing think tanks, including as a 2017 Lincoln fellow at the Claremont Institute, a think tank which supported President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Since at least 2020, Shideler has publicly fashioned himself an expert on “antifa,” a shorthand moniker for Anti-Fascism, a broad political ideology. Shideler has given Congressional testimony about the supposed domestic terror threat of “antifa” and co-edited a book entitled Unmasking Antifa: Five Perspectives of a Growing Threat (2020). But some have raised serious concerns over the veracity of the claims made by Shideler on the topic. In a report filed with the court by defense attorneys for Prairieland defendant Zachary Evetts, Anne Speckhard, director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism, stated that, “Mr. Shideler lacks the academic training, professional credentialing, and empirical research background required for expertise in criminology, extremism studies, social-movement analysis, or behavioral science.” Later in the report, Speckhard remarks that, “Mr. Shideler’s report demonstrates a longstanding pattern in his ‘research’ using fear-based conflation,” and that “this pattern raises serious questions about the credibility of his motives and reliability in evaluating whether he possesses expertise, as defined by the law.”
More recently, Shideler has drawn criticism for comments made on the news network NTD regarding the murder of anti-ICE demonstrator Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis. While discussing the incident, Shideler stated that, “This is the danger, you have agitators who are well-trained at provoking law enforcement, provoking individuals, and they’re trying to get these types of video clips out there so that they can push their message through propaganda.”Outside the courtroom, supporters of the defendants have been maintaining a constant presence to inform the public about the case and assist the loved ones sitting in the courtroom. Yesterday, police threatened to cite supporters, forcing the removal of tables outside the courthouse being used to display zines and other relevant informational material on the case.
The nine defendants, Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada, Benjamin “Champagne” Song, Elizabeth Soto, and Ines Soto were indicted in November 2025 on a variety of charges including riot, discharging a firearm, attempted murder, material support for terrorism, and conspiracy to conceal documents, all stemming from a noise demonstration in support of immigrant detainees being held at the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas.
The Prairieland cases, involving 19 people charged with both state and federal charges, stem from a noise demonstration in solidarity with detainees at the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4, 2025. After the protest, an officer with the Alvarado Police Department allegedly became involved in an exchange of gunfire soon after arrival. The officer allegedly sustained minor injuries, and was reportedly released from the hospital shortly afterwards. Authorities have still not provided hospital records to justify these claims, seven months later. Alvarado police arrested ten people in the area, and a manhunt ensued in the subsequent days for another defendant. Eight more defendants were arrested in the days and weeks following the protest.