A federal magistrate judge on Thursday sharply criticized Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, saying they have “no credibility left” for the way they have handled cases arising from President Donald Trump’s recent law-enforcement surge in the capital.
Judge Zia Faruqui, a former federal prosecutor, said leaders in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office have tarnished the office’s reputation by routinely bringing matters that do not belong in federal court and by needlessly keeping people jailed for days while charges are evaluated. The judge made the remarks during a hearing in which he agreed to dismiss a federal case against a man accused of threatening to kill the president while in police custody.
The defendant, Edward Alexander Dana, spent more than a week in jail before a federal grand jury declined to return an indictment. Faruqui called the grand jury’s refusal — which is extraordinarily rare — an indication of problems in how cases were being handled. “It's not fair to say they're losing credibility. We're past that now,” the judge said, later adding, “There's no credibility left.”
The judge’s criticism highlighted a pattern in recent weeks: since the surge began nearly a month ago, a grand jury has balked at returning indictments at least seven times across five separate cases. Faruqui said the U.S. attorney’s office was filing matters in federal court that should not be pursued there and that the practice resulted in people being detained for days without appropriate justification.
Faruqui presided over the hearing as a federal magistrate judge; he previously served as a federal prosecutor. During the proceeding, he questioned whether the rush to bring cases to federal court reflected an overreach by local leaders following the deployment of additional law-enforcement resources to the district.
The dismissal of Dana’s case came after the grand jury declined to indict, a step that undercuts the government’s decision to bring federal charges in the matter. Faruqui’s remarks conveyed frustration with both the process and the consequences for defendants who were held in custody while prosecutors weighed federal charges.
The recent influx of arrests and subsequent prosecutorial decisions have prompted scrutiny of the Justice Department’s role in handling matters that often intersect with local law enforcement and local criminal statutes. Faruqui’s comments on Thursday underscored the tension between federal authorities' efforts to address unrest or threats in the capital and the procedural safeguards that govern charging and detention.
The judge’s statements and the dismissal in Dana’s case add to a growing record of judicial pushback in the wake of the administration’s surge, with multiple judges and juries scrutinizing whether federal courts are the appropriate venue for specific charges. The developments are likely to figure in ongoing discussions inside the Justice Department about case selection, detention practices and coordination with local prosecutors as the surge continues to generate a high volume of matters for federal consideration.