A new courtroom setback has added fuel to mounting criticism of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s approach in Washington, D.C., where her office faces repeated rebukes for prosecutorial overreach and legal missteps.
On Thursday, a D.C. jury acquitted Sidney Lori Reid of misdemeanor assault charges stemming from an altercation with an FBI agent — a case Pirro’s office had tried three times to bring as a felony, only to be rejected by grand juries each time.
Prosecutors ultimately downgraded the charges to a misdemeanor. However, even that case failed, with jurors deliberating less than two hours before returning a not guilty verdict.
In her closing arguments, assistant federal public defender Tezira Abe characterized the team of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and FBI agents as a “goon squad” who believe they are above the law.
“You should be livid that the government brought this case,” Abe told the jury.
The outcome has alarmed legal observers as yet another example of a growing pattern of weak or overblown cases brought by Pirro’s office.
As reported by HuffPost, critics argue that Pirro’s prosecutors often pursue high-stakes charges without solid evidence — a strategy that backfires and erodes public confidence.
“When they throw the book at people for minor crimes ... it kind of maps onto this sense that ... prosecutors are out to lock up everybody they can,” Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law told the outlet. He further warned that such overcharging “can destroy public trust in the city’s prosecutors.”
Reid’s case is one of several brought by Pirro’s office in which grand juries refused to indict or judges questioned the legitimacy of charges.
In a recent hearing, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui sharply criticized federal prosecutors, saying they have “no credibility left” after filing cases that “don’t belong in federal court” and “needlessly keeping people in jail.”
Pirro fired back, accusing Faruqui of political bias and stating, “This judge took an oath to follow the law, yet he has allowed his politics to consistently cloud his judgment.”
In another controversial case, Pirro criticized a grand jury’s decision not to indict a man accused of assaulting a federal officer with a sandwich. In a Fox News appearance, she said D.C. residents are “so used to crime ... they don’t even care whether or not the law is violated.”
That rhetoric, critics argue, reveals a prosecutorial posture more concerned with political messaging than legal merit.
Last month, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg rebuked Pirro’s office over unprofessional conduct and public attacks on judges. The collapse of high-profile cases and rising judicial frustration cast growing doubt on whether Pirro’s prosecutorial style meets the standards of her office — or represents a political agenda misaligned with the rule of law.