In a significant development in El Paso, Texas, over 200 cases involving illegals charged with rioting have been dismissed. The incident, which took place in March, saw a large group of illegals cross into the U.S. after a section of the border fencing opened up. El Paso District Attorney Bill Hicks confirmed that 214 cases related to this event have been dropped. Despite this, Hicks noted that 59 migrants remain in jail, their cases having been reindicted under a new procedure established by a council of judges.
According to Fox News:
A large group of migrants stormed barricades on the border wall in the Lower Valley on March 21.
The migrants were arrested and jailed and were charged with state charges of riot participation.
This is a separate incident from another similar incident that happened in April where 140 migrants were indicted also on riot charges.
Hicks said the state is ready to go to trial for the migrant cases but said the public defender Kelli Childress is raising various objections.
“They seem to be doing everything can to stop going to trial,” said Hicks. “we would like to go to trial. Let a jury decide what happens to these cases.”
Public defender Kelli Childress argued that the events were characterized by several small riots rather than a single large one. Hicks supported this by mentioning that small groups of illegals cross daily without violating Texas law and are processed under federal law by the national guard and DPS. The charges under scrutiny were specifically related to larger group activities on March 21 and April 12, including acts of criminal mischief such as cutting concertina wire.
The March 21 incident involved a substantial number of illegals storming barricades on the border wall in the Lower Valley. Arrested and charged with state riot participation, these individuals’ cases have now been dismissed, though the reasons for dismissal were not detailed. This dismissal follows a similar scenario in April, where another large group of migrants faced riot charges.
Hicks expressed the state’s readiness to proceed to trial for the remaining cases, criticizing the public defender’s office for attempting to delay proceedings. He emphasized the state’s desire to have a jury determine the outcomes. Despite these legal battles, the state’s stance remains firm on handling cases of large-scale disruptions at the border, distinguishing them from smaller, routine crossings that do not contravene state law.
This development exposes the double standards of managing illegal activities at the U.S.-Mexico border, where legal interpretations and procedural nuances play significant roles in the judicial outcomes for those involved.
American citizens who go to the US Capitol to support their President aren’t as privileged and lucky as illegals who openly threaten law enforcement.
The dismissal of these cases may impact future handling and perceptions of similar incidents.