Support the Prairieland Defendants

Donate

We have a verdict. What happens next is up to us.
Here’s how to help →

Pretrial Hearing: Continuance Granted, Prosecution Admonished for Delays

Section 1: Summary

Header Block

  • Date: April 13, 2026
  • Court/Case: 413th Judicial District Court, Collin Justice Center, Courtroom C4
  • Judge: William Bosworth
  • Note: A formal hearing was not held. Instead, the judge called attorneys to the bench to discuss scheduled matters.
  • Prosecution: Christy May, Tim Good; second prosecutor described as “bearded” (names not recorded by note-takers)
  • Defense Attorneys Present: Hoffman, Sellers
  • Defendants: Dario Sanchez, Jаnette Goering (representation shared/disputed)
  • Type of Proceeding: Pretrial hearing — motion for continuance, motion for privilege log, motion to quash, conflict-of-interest inquiry
  • Note: This is a state court proceeding monitored by the Prairieland media team. Six additional incarcerated individuals from JOCO also had hearings scheduled this day.

Excerpt

The prosecution requested a 30 day extension to provide their response to the defense’s brief in support of their motion to quash. This request was granted by the judge, who remarked that the defense took 60 days to craft the brief. The judge dismissed the motion for a privilege log, and a new trial date of June 22nd was set. The prosecution alleged a conflict of interest between Dario and Janette, who share a law firm, and offered Dario immunity to testify against Janette.

Key Takeaways

  • New trial date: June 22nd. The original April 20 trial date was vacated.
  • Conflict of interest flagged. The prosecution is offering Dario Sanchez immunity to testify against Janette Goering, but both defendants may share counsel (Sellers, Hoffman, Hoops). The judge gave the parties until May 22nd to resolve representation and provide informed written consent.
  • Discovery still incomplete. The prosecution cited a 12-terabyte data transfer as a barrier and acknowledged it may not have time to produce all discovery. Defense has received no response to its motion to quash.
  • Briefing deadline: May 11th for the state’s response to the motion to quash.
  • Privilege log request denied by Judge Bosworth.

Narrative Summary

Court Convenes (~1:20 PM)

Judge William Bosworth entered the courtroom at approximately 1:20 PM. The court was handling a multiple-hearing docket, with six incarcerated individuals from JOCO also scheduled for hearings.

The prosecution announced a motion for continuance of the trial setting (originally set for April 20). Judge Bosworth immediately asked whether the prosecutor had communicated with the defense beforehand. The answer was no. Defense attorney Hoffman agreed not to oppose the continuance. The judge noted that the state had been “hammered by the court of appeals” and had not responded to defense motions. Court broke for approximately 15 minutes.

Break — Sidebar Observations

During the break, defense and prosecution attorneys huddled to discuss logistics. Key fragments overheard by note-takers:

  • “Not certain we are going to have time to do all of the discovery by then.”
  • “We haven’t received case files on Mr. Sanchez.”
  • Discussion of a possible May 27th reschedule date.

Separately, prosecutors were observed joking about taking vacation on April 20 — the day trial had been set to begin. One prosecutor (described as bearded) stated: “To be honest I don’t know where the extra file is.” There was also discussion about files that may never have been received or scanned, and talk about “surplus Glocks” after an older attorney entered the courtroom wearing a pistol in a US flag holster.

Judge Returns — Other Hearings

The judge returned and briefly addressed another defendant’s case involving a motion to quash and a continuance request. In that matter, a witness had not been subpoenaed, and the JOCO prosecutor’s office was described as overloaded with appellate deadlines, particularly death penalty cases. The judge admonished the JOCO prosecutor: “Can’t have one side surprised at the last minute that a continuance is needed.”

Sanchez Case — Brief Supporting Motion to Quash and Continuance

The judge called defense attorney Hoffman to the bench. Defense counsel responded that the motion to quash was filed in March, and the state had not responded to anything. Defense argued the motion for continuance was inappropriate.

The court ruled:

  • Motion for Privilege Log Denied. Judge did not hear arguments.
  • Motions to quash to be addressed at the next hearing.
  • New trial date: June 22nd. Attorney Hoffman agreed to June 22nd, noting the prosecution may need additional time to review 12 terabytes of information.
  • Briefing deadline: May 22nd — the state must file its briefs by this date.

Conflict of Interest — Dual Representation

The prosecution raised a separate issue: confusion over who represents whom between the defendants Dario Sanchez and Janette Goering. Both defendants are represented by Sellers Trial Law — the prosecution noted that Goering had been speaking to Hoffman, while Sanchez’s lead counsel is Hoffman. Attorneys Sellers and Hoffman were both associated with the defense, creating uncertainty about representation boundaries.

The state disclosed it is offering Dario Sanchez immunity to testify against Janette Goering. This seeks to create a conflict-of-interest concern, as both defendants may share counsel.

The defense argued:

  • A signed waiver is required at the federal level, but state court does not require it be filed.
  • No signed waiver exists between the defendants.
  • “We represent both defendants.”

The prosecution cited Texas Rule 1.06B (conflict of interest in concurrent representation) and pushed for a written response on whether a conflict exists. The defense characterized the prosecution’s demand as a professional conduct violation for not giving defense an opportunity to respond.

Judge Bosworth ruled the parties have until May 22nd to sort out representation issues and provide informed written consent from clients.

Motion to Quash — Privilege Log

In a final exchange, the defense requested a privilege log from the prosecution. The state objected, claiming there was no basis for civil discovery. The defense argued it disagreed with the privilege being asserted.

Judge Bosworth denied the defense’s request for a privilege log.

Incidents and Atmosphere

  • Prosecution attorneys were observed talking over another person’s hearing
  • Prosecutors joked about taking vacation on the scheduled trial date (April 20).
  • An older attorney entered the courtroom carrying a pistol in a US flag holster, prompting discussion about “surplus Glocks” among state attorneys.
  • The overall tone from the bench was one of frustration with the prosecution’s lack of preparation and communication.

Section 2: Full Notes

Court Notes — HR — 2026-04-13

  • Multiple hearing
  • 6 people incarcerated @ JOCO having their hearings as well

Prosecutor announces she files motion for continuance for the trial setting

  • “State hammered by the court of appeals and has not responded”

Prosecutor talks to the defense during break

  • May 27th?
  • Seem to be discussing date to reschedule
  • “may not have time to release all the discovery by then”
  • “Case files on… Goering and Sanchez”
  • Prosecution has — did not hear third name

Prosecutors joking about taking vacation on trial days, April 20, the day trial is supposed to start

  • “extra clerks… surplus clerks”
  • “To be honest I don’t know where the extra file is” — bearded prosecutor

Judge returns — different defendant

Defendant’s motion to quash
& continuance on hearing defendant’s motion to quash

  • Pretrial order
  • Witness was not subpoenaed
  • JOCO overloaded with deadlines for appellate cases, particularly death penalty cases
  • JOCO prosecutor chewed out — “Can’t have one side surprised @ the last minute that a continuance is needed”
  • Defense motions seen as persuasive by judge

Sanchez case

  • Continuance
  • Briefing deadline — May 22nd
  • “Not realistic trial setting due to prosecution waiting on 12 terabyte transfer”
  • May have to file for the continuance

Prosecutor other issue — who represents who between Goering & Sanchez

  • Defense claims this is a conflict of interest
  • State will offer Dario immunity to testify against Goering
  • Defense claims no signed waiver between defendants
  • “we represent both defendants”
  • State disagrees

State is offering Dario immunity

State not giving defense opportunity to respond

  • Professional conduct violation

Informed written consent from clients

  • May 22nd

Prosecution being demanding

  • Respond to disqualification regarding written response on whether there is a conflict

Motion for Privilege Log

  • State claims there is no basis for civil discovery
  • Defense: we disagree with the privilege being disclosed

New trial: June 22nd

Court Notes — CA — 2026-04-13

4-13-26 — Collin Justice Center — 413th Judicial District Court — C4

Judge William Bosworth entered at 1:20pm. Dario’s lawyer agreed to state request for a continuance as state has not found time to write a brief. State + Defence agreed on 30 day continuance.

[other case] Indictment was in Sept; Defence has received no response to motion to quash. It is improper to walk by… prosecution admonished (for not being ready). “I don’t want to (reject) the case on a technicality.” To motion to quash for other case… “Bond suspended. Mr. Harrington, lead Defence atty. (can reset date at his convenience).”

Lawyers Sellers & Hoffman (prosecution asks) “who represents who?” as Janette Goering has also indicated Hoffman. (Prosecution:) the state is ready to offer (Dario) immunity, if he testifies against Janette Goering. “conflict of interest” Judge gives prosecution til May 22nd.

New trial: June 22nd

Court Notes — EW — 2026-04-13

April 13, 2026

State attorneys talking over other person’s hearing… very rude

P: Motion for continuance
J: Judge asked if prosecutor has tried to talk to defense. Answer — No.
A: Hoffman agrees to discuss
J: Judge states that the state has been hammered by appeals. Breaks for 15 min.

In court Lawyer huddle

  • “not certain” we are going to have time to do all of the discovery by then. We haven’t received case files on Mr. Sanchez. Privilege?

State: Attorneys talking about surplus glocks after older atty enters with pistol on hip in US flag hoster
Also discussion about missing files, not sure if they were ever received or just not scanned.

[other case]
J. Called Harrington to bench
P: To respond to motion to quash, state needs to talk to is unavailable
Δ: Indictment in Dec, motion to quash in March. There have been no responses to anything from the State and motion to continue is inapp..
J: It is inappropriate to not file the continuance in writing. Warns that this will put court in complicated position & doesn’t want case decided on a technicality. Read Sanchez counsel brief 3 times and it is persuasive

[Other Trial]
— Allow 4 week continuance and suspending bond conditions. Can address motions to quash then. If it happens again State will be reimbursing Harrington for time & materials used to prepare.

P: State has to have briefs in by 5/22. Hoffman agreed on 6/22 if insufficient time to review 12 Tbyte info.

P: Requests clarification on who is representing Mr. Sanchez: Sellers or Hoffman. Goering has been speaking to Hoffman. State is willing to offer immunity for testimony against Goering.

Δ: Signed waiver required in fed cases.

P: 1.06B Texas Rule.

J: You have to give them time to figure this out. Have until May 22nd to sort out.

Δ: Request privilege log.

P: Opposes because it…

J: Denied.

Court Notes

  • Pretrial Hearing: Continuance Granted, Prosecution Admonished for Delays

    The prosecution requested a 30 day extension to provide their response to the defense’s brief in support of their motion to quash. This request was granted by the judge, who remarked that the defense took 60 days to craft the brief. The judge dismissed the motion for a privilege log, and a new trial date…

  • Federal Trial Verdict

    After a day and a half of deliberation, the jury returns with a decision. Pre-Sentencing Report (PSR) will be April 30 followed by sentencing on June 18, 2026 at 9:00 am.

  • March 11: Federal Trial Closing Arguments

    After nearly three weeks of trial, both sides delivered closing arguments to the jury in the Prairieland case. The prosecution urged the jury to find all eight defendants charged with conspiracy guilty under a conspiracy and Pinkerton liability theory. Meanwhile nine defense attorneys argued that the government presented evidence, but not proof, that the defendants…

  • March 10: Federal Trial Day 12

    Both sides rested and closed their cases after a day dominated by the prosecution’s effort to connect the defendants to Antifa ideology through social media, phone extractions, and chat messages. Judge Pittman questioned the relevance of the Antifa evidence.

  • March 9: Federal Trial Day 11

    Six witnesses testified: cooperating witness Nathan Baumann (cross-examination on plea deal circumstances); forensic witnesses on firearms, fingerprints, and DNA; ATF explosives specialist Steven Brenneman (consumer fireworks as explosives under 18 U.S.C. 844); and David Kyle Shideler, the prosecution’s designated Antifa expert (history of Antifa, symbology, zines, affinity groups, black bloc). Brenneman and Shideler faced extended…

  • March 6: Federal Trial Day 10

    The prosecution’s second cooperating witness, Susan Kent, broke down on the stand under defense cross-examination that exposed coercive plea conditions and the government’s role in labeling defendants as an “Antifa cell” — a term Kent did not use on her own and struggled to define. Cooperating witness John Thomas similarly could not recall who he…

  • March 5: Federal Trial Day 9

    Lynette Sharp’s cross-examination became the strongest moment yet for the defense, as she testified the defendants are a group of LGBTQ friends bound by shared identity rather than an “Antifa organization,” that no one intended to harm police, and that her plea was coerced under horrible jail conditions — prompting Judge Pittman to intervene and…

  • March 4: Federal Trial Day 8

    The prosecution’s physical evidence case continued to crumble as a 57-minute SWAT search of Savanna Batten’s apartment yielded nothing but a map, a fireworks cooler was left unsecured at the crime scene for 12 hours, and an FBI counterterrorism agent of 22 years admitted he had to Google what an “antifa flag” looks like. Texas…

  • March 3: Federal Trial Day 7

    Judge Pittman denied the defense’s self-defense motion, ruling that no reasonable person would believe unlawful force was being used at Prairieland before Song fired. The day was dominated by a parade of FBI agents testifying about searches of defendants’ homes and vehicles — yielding mostly legal items like zines, political stickers, and protest literature —…

  • February 27: Federal Trial Day 6

    Day 6 featured damaging cross-examination of the prosecution’s case, including testimony about procedural failures in evidence handling, a key witness acknowledging it would be reasonable to shoot back if pointed at with a gun, and exposure of the FBI translator’s selective translation of jail calls omitting context and emotional nuance.