The moment a judge dismissed the case, the official story that had fuelled it began to look less like a messy misunderstanding and more like something hastily stitched together and then caught on camera. In Minneapolis, charges against two Venezuelan men accused of assaulting immigration officers were dismissed 'with prejudice,' meaning prosecutors cannot simply dust themselves off and try again.
The Video That Blew a Hole in the Story
Immigration and Customs Enforcement now says two of its agents may have made 'untruthful statements' in sworn testimony about the January shooting that left Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis with a gunshot wound to the leg. ICE's acting director, Todd Lyons, said 'Video evidence has revealed that sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements,' adding that both officers were placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation. Lyons also warned that 'Lying under oath is a serious federal offense' and said the US attorney's office was actively investigating.
This matters because the government's original account was not a minor detail; it formed the spine of the prosecution. The Department of Homeland Security initially described a chaotic scene on January. 14: a car chase involving a Venezuelan national 'in the country illegally,' a struggle on the ground, and an alleged attack by additional men wielding a snow shovel and a broom handle, prompting the officer to fire 'defensive shots' because he feared for his life.
But as charging documents and subsequent statements emerged, the narrative visibly shrank. Officials revised who they said fled in the car, shifting the focus from Sosa‑Celis to Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, and walked back an early claim that three people attacked the officer, with court papers indicating two.
When Minnesota's top federal prosecutor, Daniel N. Rosen, asked the court to dismiss the case, he did so in unusually blunt language, saying 'newly discovered evidence' was 'materially inconsistent with the allegations' and that dismissal with prejudice 'will serve the interests of justice.' On Friday, a judge granted that request and the case was dismissed. That is not a procedural hiccup. That is a warning flare.
Minneapolis ICE, Political Heat and a System Under Oath
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, senior officials leaned hard into a narrative of besieged law enforcement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters an agent was 'beat up, he's bruised, he is injured, he's getting treatment, and we're thankful that he made it out alive.' US deputy attorney general Todd Blanche went further on X, calling a 'Minnesota insurrection' the product of a 'FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor,' and branding it 'disgusting.'
It's an intoxicating style of politics: loud, certain, punitive, allergic to nuance. But it collapses the moment the underlying facts wobble. The two men at the centre of the dismissed case Aljorna and Sosa-Celis had been charged with forcibly assaulting, resisting or impeding federal officers. Their lawyers did not pretend Friday's dismissal was anything other than an exoneration in practice: Frederick Goetz, representing Aljorna, said he was 'delighted,' while Robin Wolpert, for Sosa-Celis, said his client was 'a crime victim' and that 'these untruthful statements had serious consequences for my client and his family.'
And then there is the third man, Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez Ledezma, who was arrested after the incident and taken into ICE custody. A court filing described by Law & Crime says he was moved through multiple Texas facilities and was ultimately ordered released by a US district judge, who characterised his detention as unlawful. The BBC also reported that Hernandez Ledezma was returned to Minnesota and released by order of a federal judge.
All of this unfolded against a broader enforcement operation in Minnesota that Trump's border tsar, Tom Homan, said would end after more than two months, with officials claiming more than 4,000 arrests during the campaign. The sweep may be winding down, but the Minneapolis case leaves behind a more corrosive question than any soundbite can cover: if sworn testimony can be so badly at odds with video evidence, what else is being asked to stand up in court on nothing more than confidence and a badge?
Originally published on IBTimes UK
© Copyright IBTimes 2025. All rights reserved.
