Cross-Examination of Government Witnesses Leaves Defendants’ Supporters Feeling Confident as Trial Enters Second Week, Despite Attempts by the Prosecution to Block Defense Strategies
FORT WORTH, TX – The first week of trial against nine defendants in the widely watched federal Prairieland ICE Detention Center case continued to expose the contradictions and weaknesses in the government’s arguments, as well as unconstitutional conduct by police. Despite claiming the July 4 protest was an ambush, police witnesses testified last week that little damage was done to the facility and the Detention Center staff was largely ignored. Moreover, the responding officer Lt. Thomas Gross admitted that he drew his firearm and aimed it at an unarmed protester while they ran away.
Prairieland Detention Center officer Dekeithan Reedy contradicted his written statement, claiming on the stand that he had never seen his sworn statement and had no idea who had written it. One of the arresting officers admitted on the stand to conducting an illegal search of defendants at the scene, while other prosecution witnesses revealed that procedures for evidence preservation were violated or ignored multiple times.
The federal Prairieland trial will continue on Tuesday, March 3, when it is expected that the government will try to prove how a printing press, zines and First Amendment material is evidence of terrorism. The prosecution will also call to the stand an antifa “expert” and up to four co-operating witnesses who previously pleaded guilty. The prosecution is expected to rest their case by Friday.
What: Second week of federal Prairieland trial against nine defendants
When: Trial begins again on Tuesday, March 3, 2026 at 9am
Where: Federal Courthouse, 501 West 10th Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102
“I’ve known in my heart this whole time that the defendants were not guilty of what the government is accusing them of, but I’m heartened to see just how weak the government’s case is,” said Lydia Koza, the wife of defendant Autumn Hill. “This trial is clearly a political stunt meant to criminalize dissent and nothing makes that clearer than the government’s lack of evidence for its fantastical claims.”
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 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 Alvarado police officer, who was injured at the scene on July 4, and who is at the center of the government’s case, testified that he almost immediately drew his gun upon arrival without any obvious threat. The officer, Lt. Thomas Gross, told the jury that he pointed his firearm at a fleeing person’s back before shots were fired. The government has also failed to provide any medical records for the injury Lt. Gross allegedly sustained. A later witness, Texas Ranger Billy Hill claimed on the stand that he believed it may be acceptable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person in the back while they run away.
Body cam footage shows defendants Batten, Liz and Ines Soto, Rueda, and Sikes walking slowly and calmly away from the facility. Officer Darius Bell was shown stopping these defendants and, when they complied with police instructions while asserting their rights against illegal search and seizure by stating, “I do not consent to a search,” then Bell drew his weapon and police began yelling at the defendants who were seated on the ground. Police then proceeded to search their backpacks in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
The prosecution did not provide any evidence of a coordinated attack. They claimed all the defendants were wearing black clothes and tactical gear. However, video evidence and witness testimony showed many defendants were wearing colored clothing, including blue jeans, different colored shirts, and a tank top. In one humorous moment, the prosecution displayed an image of defendant clothing they described as tactical, which included two pairs of black thong underwear.
Moreover, the prosecution also described a scene with people spread over a wide area without an obvious intent to directly engage the facility or officers on the scene. The fireworks were mostly shot into the air and caused no damage to the facility. Detention Center staff who initially approached those on the scene were ignored, and at the time of the alleged shooting, at least five of the defendants were several hundred yards away, seemingly walking to their cars. One defendant, Autumn Hill, was claimed by her attorneys to have left early with the implications that she felt that the intent to show solidarity with the detainees had been successfully accomplished.
The prosecution’s case was further weakened on Friday when evidence was introduced against Daniel Sanchez Estrada and his wife, Maricela Rueda, who are both charged with conspiracy to conceal documents. Government witnesses cherry picked moments from jail phone calls between the couple and attempted to claim that words like “community” and statements like, “we are working on finding lawyers,” were evidence of a criminal network. In a stunning display of incompetence, FBI agent Ulises Avalos struggled with basic Spanish phrases used by Rueda, despite being tasked with translating phone calls and portraying himself as bilingual during cross examination.
Late on Friday, when it was clear the prosecution was struggling to make a compelling case, the Assistant US Attorney filed a motion and brief asking US District Court Judge Mark Pittman to bar the defense from advancing a legal argument that the alleged shooting may have been an act of self-defense, or defense of another. Citing case precedent stemming from the 1993 standoff in Waco, Texas between federal agents and the Branch Davidians, the government is requesting that the jury not be permitted to consider such a defense argument.
“This is yet another questionable move by federal prosecutors in this unprecedented case, with the potential of seriously eroding the defendants’ ability to have a fair trial and adequate defense,” commented attorney Xavier T. de Janon about the Department of Justice’s unusual motion. “The government seeks to take away crucial, fact-based issues out of the hands of the jury, in the middle of the trial, after the evidence has already been introduced.”
Throughout the trial, supporters have rallied outside the courthouse to bring attention to the Prairieland case, to highlight numerous inconsistencies in court proceedings, and to remind everyone that these defendants are vital members of their local communities. Supporters have underscored from the beginning that the government is using this case as a way to spread fear, intimidate would-be dissidents, and suppress mass protest against the actions of ICE.
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 followed by one other, many months later.