‘You have to go’
Wednesday, Jun 10, 2026 - Posted by Rich Miller
* CNI…
In the days following a marked escalation in the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” mass deportation campaign in early October — including the shooting of a U.S. citizen by a federal immigration agent and the National Guard’s deployment to Chicago — a panel of grand jurors gathered once again behind closed doors in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse.
That particular group was nearing the end of its 18-month grand jury service, which began in June 2024, and had so far spent hundreds of hours hearing evidence brought by various federal prosecutors and signing off on indictments. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg, a near two-decade veteran of the Department of Justice, had appeared in front of that grand jury enough times to develop a sort of bond with the group.
That bond, she told the grand jurors on Oct. 9, 2025, led her to ask her superiors if she could wait to present “a very interesting case” to them.
Transcripts are here, here and here.
* Sun-Times…
“I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn’t think there was probable cause and, you know, you’ve asked me before ‘well, what about this person?’” Mecklenburg told the panel. “And I said, ‘I don’t charge people unless I’m absolutely sure.’” […]
The grand jury apparently rejected the case Oct. 9, prompting Mecklenburg and Skiba to try again Oct. 16. Grand jurors actually walked out of the proceedings that day, court records show. That’s also when a grand juror asked Mecklenburg whether the feds get “unlimited tries.”
“I hope you don’t have your mind made up already that I’m going to need more tries,” Mecklenburg said.
But a member of the panel soon asked, “are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side?”
That’s when Mecklenburg asked if the grand juror would be able to listen with an open mind. The grand juror retorted, “I heard this case, like, last week and I thought it was a crock of sh– then and I still think it is.”
Mecklenburg told the grand juror to “excuse yourself.”
Federal rules of criminal procedure only empower “the court” to excuse a grand juror. In Chicago, that would be U.S. District Chief Judge Virginia Kendall.
* CBS 2…
“Are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint from your side?” the skeptical juror asks.
“Okay. I’m feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth,” Mecklenburg responds.
“I—no,” the juror replies.
“Okay. Then you have to go,” Mecklenburg says.
“I heard this case, like, last week and I thought it was a crock of s*** then and I still think it is,” the grand juror says.
“Okay. Thank you for your opinion for everybody,” Mecklenburg says. “I kind of had that impression from last week, but thank you.”
“Do you have any other evidence other than [inaudible],” the juror asks, according to the transcript.
“Have a good evening,” Mecklenburg replies. […]
The transcripts also include instances in which Mecklenburg appears to testify on behalf of agents who were involved in the protest incident, defending them to questioning jurors, defense attorneys said. In another instance, she tells the grand jurors that no law enforcement took video of the incident in question, which attorneys say is factually untrue.
* Tribune…
“I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn’t think there was probable cause,” Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript. “So in this case I want you to do what we have done and that is put aside any personal feelings.”
Mecklenburg then walked through the basics of the case — a supervisor at the processing center, identified as a facilities manager for the building — was heading to report to the building when a crowd of people surrounded his car.
“They are banging on the hood and they are banging on the windows and they are pushing up against — they’re standing in front of the car,” Mecklenburg said. “They’re chanting, they’re scratching into the car.” […]
The transcript shows grand jurors were skeptical about Mecklenburg’s characterization of the defendants’ actions as conspiracy.
“I understand the hindering and impeding,” one juror said. “But the conspiring?”
“A conspiracy is just an agreement,” Mecklenburg responded, according to the transcript.
Mecklenburg argued that everyone at the scene was responsible for the events that occurred that morning.
* WTTW…
Transcripts show grand jurors had questions about whether any of the damage to the vehicle could have occurred prior to the incident and asked why the agent driving never felt the need to call for backup if he felt he was in danger.
When asked why only those six people were charged, Mecklenburg said the investigation into the incident was ongoing, and suggested she could be back before the grand jury in the future to seek additional indictments, according to the transcripts.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:07 pm:
The focus in the press is rightly on misuses of the grand jury process by the USA for Northern IL. Mecklenburg’s conduct here is far outside the norm, and Boutros himself is deep in the doo-doo, too. Prosecutors have to handle political pressure while doing justice. If they can’t do the former, they won’t do the latter, either.
- Flapdoodle - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:09 pm:
“. . . suggested she could be back before the grand jury in the future . . . .”
Not if she’s no longer an AUSA . . . and she clearly should not be. Egregious misconduct.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:22 pm:
“Okay. I’m feeling the skepticism already”
My experience, a healthy dose of skepticism will serve you well in this world.
- Billionaire Budster - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:29 pm:
Given the extreme power federal prosecutors have there most certainly should be new criminal laws that can be applied to any who choose to abuse and misused the sacred trust we place in them.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:32 pm:
“I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn’t think there was probable cause,” Mecklenburg said, according to the transcript. “So in this case I want you to do what we have done and that is put aside any personal feelings.”
That sounds like someone getting leaned on by supervisors….
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:33 pm:
“Are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint from your side?” the skeptical juror asks.
And Mecklenburg could not or would not answer.
That says a LOT.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:43 pm:
As the legend goes, the Northern District can indict a ham sandwich, but it turns out it can’t convict a crock of “expletive deleted.”
- Original Rambler - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 2:57 pm:
I tip my hat to that grand juror. Sounds like a principled person.
- Google is Your Friend - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 3:47 pm:
We’ve heard that this conduct is, as Socially DIstant Watcher terms it, “outside the norm.” But how do we know that it actually is? Why would a two-decade veteran of the office start acting this way? I highly doubt it was because everything was on the up and up before.
We can turn, for example, to the infamous Duke lacrosse case in North Carolina. In the prosecutorial misconduct there, it was spun as an interim DA fighting for an election, but it was later proven that person had a long record of misconduct that was alternately ignored or covered up for years. It’s just that the victims of that previous misconduct weren’t wealthy and white. In the Broadview 6 case, the defendants might be politically disfavored by the current administration, but they are people with a lot of access and power in various ways.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 3:59 pm:
===But how do we know that it actually is?===
I think - can’t be sure - we’d have heard something about that.
===Why would a two-decade veteran of the office start acting this way?===
To keep her job and what she thought was the prestige that went with it?
But, you may have a point. Open it all up.
- Leslie K - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 4:24 pm:
I have to agree that Google @3:47 may have a point. Things like bringing a shaky case, overstating the evidence, etc. could be signs of excessive pressure from above in a particular matter.
But some of what we are learning seems more like a casual disregard for the applicable rules. And I just don’t see that suddenly developing overnight.
- West Sider - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 5:06 pm:
There is not much a State can do to rein in Federal legal misconduct- but lawyers are licensedby the State Bar. This seems the kind of misconduct that would reasonably call the fitness of Boutros and Mecklenburg into question.
- Juice - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 5:11 pm:
A couple of points on how frequently this happens.
First, there is now one other indictment, totally unrelated to Midway Blitz but instead is a COVID fraud scheme with Loretto Hospital, that might get thrown out because of similar behavior, though from the very same prosecutor. So to a small extent, we are already hearing something more on that.
Second, the grand jury proceedings are kept secret. Even a defendant typically does not get to see what occurred there. The burden for a conviction is higher than an indictment, so the presumption is that if the evidence presented to the grand jury is that important, its also going to be presented at trial.
Which ties into the next point, which is that because that burden is presumed to be higher at trial, if there was a conviction, the justice system no longer cares whether the indictment was produced correctly. The courts have basically said that if you’re convicted, whatever happened in the grand jury is no longer relevant.
I do suspect this happens a lot more often. There are a number of people that had a pretty high opinion of Sheri compared to some of her colleagues in the office, which gives me additional pause as to saying either this was isolated, or that she was the only one doing this.
- Chambananon - Wednesday, Jun 10, 26 @ 6:33 pm:
“I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn’t think there was probable cause and, you know, you’ve asked me before ‘well, what about this person?’” Mecklenburg told the panel. “And I said, ‘I don’t charge people unless I’m absolutely sure.’” […]
To echo Juice’s point, this quote cries out for further investigation — appears to suggest that improper vouching for the validity of the charges being brought was a fairly regular event for this prosecutor. Have to wonder how many times the improper vouching happened, let alone guess at how many other prosecutors in the office had witnessed or heard about it and did nothing. Considering her 20-year tenure in the Office, you also have to wonder how many other folks have the same bad practice–how many people did she train to do that over the years? (Maybe none? Maybe a ton? The Broadview 6 case had a junior attorney on it with her.)