Two Weeks After Stunning Verdict, Prairieland Defense Lawyers Filed Motions Friday for Judgments of Acquittal and New Trial,
Based in Part on Allegations of Juror Misconduct
DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX — Lawyers for nine recently convicted defendants in the landmark Prairieland ICE Detention Center protest case filed motions late Friday in an effort to overturn the jury verdicts reached two weeks ago. All defense lawyers filed motions for judgments of acquittal and, in the alternative, a new trial, based on Rule 29 and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, respectively. Defense lawyers claimed the government failed to enter evidence that supported a conviction on the alleged charges. The lawyers collectively argued that a conviction must be vacated where no rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a standard that ensures convictions are based on evidence and not speculation.
On March 13, nine Prairieland 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 convicted of numerous federal charges, including riot, material support for terrorism, possession and conspiracy to use explosives, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Song was found guilty of attempted murder for allegedly shooting an Alvarado police officer.
Song’s lawyer, Phillip Hayes, challenged his client’s attempted murder verdict. “The intent to kill is disproven by the evidence that Benjamin Song intentionally fired into the ground and not in the direction of any individual, but the government investigators failed to photograph, preserve, or test any of the evidence that these ground-strikes occurred,” Hayes argued in a motion for judgment of acquittal. “There were thousands of photographs taken during this investigation, but none of the bullet strikes on the concrete,” Hayes continued. “In this particular count, it is incumbent on the government to prove intent to murder—not intent to shoot or even intent to harm, but instead the specific intent to murder—that was not done in this case.”
Tailim Song also filed a separate motion for a new trial on behalf of Benjamin Song, arguing Brady violations and a due process failure to preserve exculpatory evidence. A Brady violation, based on the 1963 Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, occurs when prosecutors conceal exculpatory evidence favorable to the defense. In this case, the government failed to inform defendants that Lt. Thomas Gross, the Alvarado police officer who was allegedly injured at the noise demonstration, was the first one to draw a weapon that night. The defense also first learned during trial that crime-scene investigators did not take photographs of the alleged bullet strikes into the ground that the government relied on to argue direction of fire, trajectory, and intent. Tailim Song argued that the government “had a duty to disclose the omission in time for the defense to use it,” and called on the court to, at minimum, hold a “bad faith” evidentiary hearing to address potential Brady violations.
Also notable was the motion for a new trial filed by Batten’s attorney, Christopher Tolbert, on the grounds that juror misconduct and irregularities during jury deliberations compromised the integrity of the verdict and deprived Batten (and other defendants) of a fair trial. Tolbert noted that there was “a loud and sustained disturbance emanating from the area of the jury room,” which was observed by several people on the day the verdict was reached. Based on information obtained after the verdict, Tolbert stated in his motion, “there is reason to believe that jurors engaged in a heated confrontation inside the jury room and that certain jurors may have been subjected to intimidation or coercion during deliberations.” Juror misconduct is a legally proper reason for granting a new trial.
“Because there is credible evidence that the jury’s deliberative process was disrupted by misconduct and possible coercion, and because such conduct creates a reasonable probability that the verdict was affected,” Tolbert continued, “the Court should grant a new trial in the interest of justice.” At a minimum, Tolbert said, “the Court should conduct an evidentiary hearing and permit examination of jurors to determine the extent and impact of the misconduct.” When credible allegations arise that the jury’s deliberative process may have been affected by improper influence or misconduct, the appellate court has made clear the trial court has an affirmative duty to investigate and ensure the integrity of the verdict, requiring the involvement of all parties in a properly conducted hearing.
Despite the sinister charge of conspiracy to use and carry explosives, evidence showed that the so-called explosives were nothing more than consumer grade fireworks. The motion filed on behalf of Ines Soto argued that the fireworks did not result in damage to the detention center and, in fact, “the initial investigation viewed the fireworks so inconsequentially that they were left in the field when the crime scene was released and were retrieved late the next day.”
Lawyers for Maricela Rueda argued in her post-verdict motion that, “where the record demonstrates that the jury’s deliberative process was compromised, that prejudicial evidence was improperly introduced, or that the proceedings as a whole deprived the defendant of a fair trial, the Court not only has the authority, but the obligation to grant a new trial in the interest of justice.”
Backing up that claim, Rueda’s lawyers emphasized that the government introduced extensive evidence regarding ‘Antifa,’ including “generalized alleged ideology, historical materials, literature, and an expert whose testimony framed Antifa as a dangerous movement.” The Fifth Circuit, which reviews cases from the Northern District of Texas where the trial took place, has repeatedly cautioned against the admission of evidence that invites conviction based on ideology rather than conduct, yet the trial was “saturated with evidence designed to evoke fear, political bias, and guilt by association,” according to Rueda’s lawyers.
Lawyers for Sanchez Estrada, who was accused of transporting and concealing First Amendment-protected material consisting entirely of “literature and expressive content that was not evidence of any crime,” argued in their post-verdict motion that “no link of the materials found in Mr. Sanchez’s home, vehicle, or box was ever established to any codefendant’s case.”
US District Court Judge Mark Pittman is expected to rule on the post-verdict defense motions in the coming days.
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 sustained minor injuries, and was reportedly released from the hospital shortly afterwards. Authorities have still not provided hospital records to justify these claims, eight months later. Alvarado police arrested ten people in the area, and a manhunt ensued in the subsequent days for another defendant. Nine more defendants were arrested in the days, weeks, and months following the protest.