When three separate grand juries refuse to indict on the same set of facts, it sends a message louder than any courtroom argument: the case just isn’t there.
That’s the unusual bind U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office now finds itself in with the prosecution of Sidney Lori Reid, the D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE operation outside the D.C. Jail this summer.
Prosecutors originally pushed for the felony version of the charge—assaulting a federal officer causing bodily injury, a crime that carries up to eight years behind bars. The alleged “bodily injury”? Scrapes on the back of an agent’s hand after Reid resisted being restrained.
Compare that to the headline-grabbing case earlier this month where a former DOJ employee was hit with the same felony for throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent. The pattern raises eyebrows: is the felony statute being stretched to cover moments of defiance or embarrassment more than genuine injury?
The legal reality is stark. Grand juries almost never return “no true bills” in federal cases; the threshold is so low—just probable cause—that prosecutors nearly always get the green light. For three different panels to look at this evidence and decline to indict is extraordinary. As former federal prosecutor Christopher Macchiaroli noted, if you can’t convince a grand jury of “a fair probability,” good luck convincing twelve jurors to unanimously convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet, Pirro’s office is pressing on, downgrading to a misdemeanor assault charge. In their view, the refusal to indict doesn’t mean no crime occurred—just that they couldn’t meet the standard for the felony. A magistrate judge did find probable cause at a preliminary hearing, but that’s cold comfort when three juries of ordinary citizens said otherwise.
Reid’s defenders see it as vindication. Her attorneys argue she was targeted for filming the ICE officers and point to bodycam footage of an officer sneering at her: “You should have just stayed home and minded your business.” To them, this is less about protecting federal officers from harm than about making an example of someone who crossed lines the government didn’t like.
Politics looms in the background. D.C. is ground zero for the Biden-era clashes over immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies, and public perception of federal authority. By pressing forward, prosecutors are signaling they won’t tolerate interference with federal agents—even if that means pursuing a misdemeanor after three failed attempts at a felony.
Now the case rests with U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, who will preside over what may turn into a referendum on prosecutorial overreach as much as Reid’s actions.
