MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026

[J. J. in Phila]

Are they saying they sent evidence to the grand jury without first reviewing it?

A case must be ruled "complex" before a judge will allow the prosecution to waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial. This case doesn't meet that test. It involves charges against 2 journalists covering an event that lasted a couple of hours, at most.

Better examples of a complex case would be Brian Kohberger murdering 4 college students in their apartment or the Wagner family murdering 8 members of the Rhoden and Gilley families as they slept in 4 different homes.

The defendants in this case have already allowed a 21 day extension for the government to make it's case. Discovery should already be taking place on most of the evidence, as most of it has already been seen by the public. JMO.

LemonFortSpeedyOpp022026.PDF

www.documentcloud.org

Like testimony, absolutely. It does not happen until it happens.

Kohberger was state court, IIRC which operates under different rules.

MMO.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

However, that is very large step to convincing a petite jury.

The old line about a prosecutor getting a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" came from a judge name Sol Wachtler, who was later convicted and served time in federal prison. It is a good proving ground for the strength of a case.

MOO

I am interested to see how strong the DOJ’s case is too, especially after learning that both Magistrate Judge Micko refused to issue the five remaining arrests warrants, including DL’s, for the DOJ because in his opinion there wasn’t enough evidence to criminally charge him and the four other defendants for violating the FACE Act and that Judge Schultz identified in his letter during the appeal process that two of the eight defendants weren’t even protesters but were journalists with no evidence of carrying out criminal behavior at the church. It would be interesting to know if the DOJ has made their case stronger since late December though I disagree personally that DL and Forte violated the FACE Act.

To be fair though on the other hand, I recall too one judge in MN’s 8th Circuit Court had stated publicly that the DOJ had shown that there was enough probable cause to issue all five arrest warrants so there is that.

As for the grand jury, to be honest for me personally it is hard to tell how strong the case is based on it after the reading the previous two statements from the MN judges. IIRC, 99% of federal grand jury cases come back with an indictment. Factors such as indictments, unlike guilt or innocence, are based on the grand jury’s belief that there is probable cause to reasonably believe a crime was committed by the defendant, not that the defendant committed it beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury only needs a majority vote, not an unanimous one to pass an indictment. Additionally, hearsay can be presented in court and it is exclusively led and organized by the government who is the only that can presents its case with its witnesses and evidences.

But those are just my own concerns

IMO/MOO

Judges blocked the Trump DOJ on Don Lemon. A grand jury could do the same.

Grand jurors around the country have rejected some of the Justice Department’s most blatantly political efforts.

www.ms.now

Trump DOJ goes into its Don Lemon case without a key tool: the courts’ trust

A motion from Don Lemon and Georgia Fort marks latest push to question the “presumption of regularity” historically given to the government.

www.ms.now

How US Grand Juries Work

'People's panel' a powerful tool for prosecutors

www.voanews.com

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/95-1135#_Toc202800027

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3972&context=clevstlrev

 

[imstilla.grandma]

The former CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested late Thursday night on charges that he violated federal law during a protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, his lawyer said, in a case rejected last week by a magistrate judge. Mr. Lemon has said he was simply reporting as a journalist when he entered the Cities Church on January 18 to observe a demonstration against the immigration crackdown in the area.

MSN

 

[CrimeDawg123]

This case is going to get thrown out so fast, just watch.

 

[Ruminations]

I snipped down to this bit:

As the Government should know, the Department of Justice’s own internal policies reinforce that prosecutors are expected to thoroughly assess evidence and discovery obligations before charges are brought, as part of the charging decision, not afterward.

The paragraph above references a huge part of what appears to have gone wrong with the GJ process in this case. The sentence is snarky. The defense is credibly accusing the prosecution of not properly considering the exculpating facts when presenting to the grand jury. The prosecution is also accused of failing to instruct the grand jury properly.

The sentence says "should know" but what they mean is they do know but ignored proper process.


The prosecution has no intention of winning. They just wanted their perp walks, fake crying photos, and lying talking heads on TV. Once the case is resolved, there will be no more of that. So that is why they are slow walking.



MOO

 

[Ruminations]

The DOJ's own internal policy requires that it investigate first, evaluate the evidence, before bringing charges. It goes without saying they reviewed it prior to presenting it to a grand jury and don't need additional time to review it again.

LemonFortSpeedyOpp022026.PDF

www.documentcloud.org

There are many more complex cases that haven't required months and months of additional delays. They have a high bar to jump in proving to the court they need more delays, including 3 extra months, to re-review their evidence on a case that isn't complex. JMO

It should go without saying that the prosecution reviewed the case before bringing it to the grand jury. Or before allowing the grand jury to finish the case, if it were an evidence gathering, investigatory grand jury.

But it doesn't go without saying in this case, unfortunately. That is why there is a motion to release the grand jury transcripts.


MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As for the grand jury, to be honest for me personally it is hard to tell how strong the case is based on it after the reading the previous two statements from the MN judges. IIRC, 99% of federal grand jury cases come back with an indictment. Factors such as indictments, unlike guilt or innocence, are based on the grand jury’s belief that there is probable cause to reasonably believe a crime was committed by the defendant, not that the defendant committed it beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury only needs a majority vote, not an unanimous one to pass an indictment. Additionally, hearsay can be presented in court and it is exclusively led and organized by the government who is the only that can presents its case with its witnesses and evidences.

Snipped for brevity.

The author of this piece is a supporter of the concept of a grand jury: The Grand Jury Emerges as a Check on Trump's DOJ

I thinks are quite valid about the need for a solid case to get an indictment.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This case is going to get thrown out so fast, just watch.

Weren't their people saying it would be dismissed already?

 

[Betty P]

Weren't their people saying it would be dismissed already?

I don't know about dismissal, but JMO, the DOJ will eventually drop it altogether.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Weren't their people saying it would be dismissed already?

I'm not sure if anyone said it would be dismissed on arraignment. That's exceedingly rare, from what I've read. Other recently dismissed high-profile cases involving the DOJ were dismissed relatively quickly, but after arraignment.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

Long article by Lawfare. Highlighting all of the discriminatory public statements given by members of the govt about Don Lemon's reporting at Cities Church.

It also states that the govt tried to manufacture an emergency over Don Lemon's arrest. An emergency that the judge did not agree with.


Judge Schiltz: The government’s arguments about the urgency of its request makes no sense. As the government says, “dozens” of protestors invaded Cities Church on Sunday. The leaders of that group have been arrested, and everyone knows that they have been arrested.
The government says that there are plans to disrupt Cities Church again on Sunday.
Of course, the best way to protect Cities Church is to protect Cities Church; we have thousands of law-enforcement officers in town, and presumably a few of them could be stationed outside of Cities Church on Sunday.
The government does not explain why the arrests of five more people—one of whom is a journalist and the other his producer—would make Cities Church any safer, especially because that would still leave “dozens” of those who invaded the church on Sunday free to do it again.

The bizarre saga that unfolded in the weeks leading up to Don Lemon’s indictment illustrates just how far the Justice Department has fallen.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The judge ruled yesterday on the motion regarding complex case designation, and granted in part and denied in part.

This is from the order:

Accordingly, based on the above, as well as all the files, records, and proceedigns
herein, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Government must make all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16(a) by March 26, 2026. D. Minn. LR 12.1(a)(1). To avoid the need
for a recess of the Motions Hearing, the Government is requested to make all
disclosures which will be required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 and 12(h) by March
26, 2026.

2. Defendant must make all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16(b) by April 2, 2026. D. Minn. LR 12.1(a)(2).

3. The parties must disclose the identity of any expert witness and make all expert
disclosures required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 no later than 28
days before trial. The parties must disclose the identity of any expert who will
testify in rebuttal of an expert witness and make all disclosures as to such expert
required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 no later than 14 days before
trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(1)(G).

4. Defendant’s pretrial motions must be filed and served consistent with Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b) and 47 and Local Rule 12.1(c) on or before
April 9, 2026.

5. Counsel must electronically file a letter on or before April 9, 2026,
if no motions will be filed and there is no need for hearing.

6. All responses to motions, along with a Notice of Intent to Call Witnesses, must
be filed by April 23, 2026, in accordance with Local Rule 12.1(c)(3)(A).

7. Any Responsive Notice of Intent to Call Witnesses must be filed by April 27,
2026, in accordance with Local Rule 12.1(c)(3)(B).

8. A motions hearing will be held pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
12(b) and (c) if:
a. The United States makes timely disclosures and the Defendant
identifies in the motions particularized matters for which an
evidentiary hearing is necessary; or
b. Oral argument is requested by either party in its motion, objection or
response pleadings.

9. If required, a motions hearing will be held before Magistrate Judge Douglas L.
Micko on a date and time to be determined, in Courtroom 6B, Warren E. Burger
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, Saint Paul,
Minnesota 55101.

10. The parties will receive the remaining dates relating to trial by separate order.

11. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice
served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interest of the
public and Defendant in a speedy trial. This finding is based on all of the files
and proceedings herein, including the facts set forth in the motion and the
supporting documents. Accordingly, the period of time from March 10, 2026,
the prior motions deadline, to April 9, 2026, the new motions deadline, shall
be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act computations in this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72212459/united-states-v-levy-armstrong/?order_by=desc