It appears, from his report on the trial, that he was basically found guilty of assault for failing to immediately obey an order by a border guard to drop to the floor ... after being punched in the face. (He paused to ask "why".)
The problem here isn't the trial, or the prosecutor, or the jury: it's a law that's drawn so broadly that failing to immediately obey an order from a US border patrol guard is classified as "assault".
(If this is remotely typical of the breadth of the law, then most of us are guilty of serious criminal behaviour and should turn ourselves in. Or something.)
The conviction rate for federal crimes in the US is around 95%, a level typically associated with countries like Japan or Russia that are routinely criticized for their kangaroo courts.
The "conviction rate" at the federal level is basically a BS statistic because it includes plea bargains and federal prosecutors have a much greater degree of choice when it comes to pursuing prosecution compared to state and local prosecutors. Most of the convictions are drug an immigration cases (29% and 21% respectively in a recent example year) and if you were to look at the actual conviction rate of cases where the conviction comes from an actual court verdict the rate is much lower. An odd little factoid here is that for cases that go before a jury the conviction rate is in the low 80% range while bench trials before a judge have a conviction rate in the mid to high 50s.
Which is exactly why the crimes are so loosely defined. The prosecutor loads up a defendant with every conceivable charge, in the expectation that they'll plead guilty to avoid an absurdly long sentence. Only the bravest, most foolish, or truly innocent will risk a jury trial. Plea bargaining is illegal in some countries for this reason.
I like this sentence because it suggests a guilt-by-association argument. However, you would have to be living under a rock to not notice that individual rights in the USA are gone, and they aren't coming back.
Well, if there is something to be learned from this experience, it's that unless you are prepared to be a felon, when at the border, always immediately comply to the best of your ability, and never, ever, question what you are being told to do.
I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying it's my takeaway.
The problem here isn't the trial, or the prosecutor, or the jury: it's a law that's drawn so broadly that failing to immediately obey an order from a US border patrol guard is classified as "assault".
(If this is remotely typical of the breadth of the law, then most of us are guilty of serious criminal behaviour and should turn ourselves in. Or something.)