Recently released transcripts from the October 2025 grand jury that eventually returned an indictment against the Broadview Six ICE protestors show a grand jury deeply skeptical of the government’s argument for a finding of probable cause, with some jurors openly derisive of the prosecution.
Grand jurors repeatedly expressed concern over the definition of conspiracy presented by Sheri Mecklenburg and Matt Skiba, assistant U.S. attorneys. Jurors questioned their continued attempts to obtain an indictment after their first two attempts failed. Mecklenburg repeatedly characterized the opinions of jurors who disagreed with the government’s case as “feelings” rather than considered opinions.
More than 190 pages of grand jury proceedings from three days last October were released to the public in the wake of the dismissal of charges against the six defendants, including Oak Park Village Trustee Brian Straw. Straw and his attorney Chris Parente were at the forefront of efforts to force release of the transcripts and are seeking sanctions for the misconduct of prosecutors.
Throughout the three sessions, Mecklenburg and Skiba avoided presenting any direct evidence of any express agreement by members of the “Broadview Six” to assault or impede an ICE agent’s vehicle, insisting that the six defendant’s actions were sufficient to prove the existence of a conspiracy.
On several occasions, Mecklenburg referred to Skiba as “Professor Skiba,” suggesting an added gravitas or weight to his presentation. On one occasion, she engaged Skiba in a question and answer session, as if he were a witness.
The second session on Oct. 16 began tense and stayed tense, when a juror asked, “Do you have unlimited tries?”
“Do we have — what did you ask?” Mecklenburg said. “Unlimited tries,” the juror repeated. “Like you keep coming back as many times as you want?”
“Well, I don’t think we have to worry about that. I think we’re going to be just fine,” Mecklenburg said. “I think the saying is the second time is the charm,” Skiba quipped.
But Mecklenburg wasn’t happy. “Wait, wait, wait. You just responded like, well, maybe I do. Do you?” she asked a juror.
“I mean I’ll listen,” the juror replied.
“Do you have an open mind for deliberation and returning a verdict if the facts meet the law,” Mecklenburg asked. “Yes,” the juror replied.
“Okay. Is there anybody here who feels differently?” Mecklenburg asked. “Because if you do, then you shouldn’t deliberate with the — so you – you took a — you know, you have a duty to — to have an open mind and see if the facts fit the law and you don’t get to decide if you like the law or you don’t.”
Things then boiled over when a grand juror asked, “Are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side?”
“Okay. I’m feeling the skepticism already,” Mecklenburg said. “Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.”
“I — no,” the juror replied. “Okay. Then you have to go,” Mecklenburg told him.
“I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is,” the juror told Mecklenburg, who replied, “Okay. Thank you for your opinion for everybody.”
“Uh-huh,” the juror said. “I kind of had that impression from last week, but thank you,” Mecklenburg said.
“Do you have any evidence other than the (inaudible),” the juror asked Mecklenburg, who replied, “Have a good evening.”
“Pardon me?” The juror said. “I’m (inaudible) — no new evidence?”
“I didn’t say there is no new evidence (Inaudible.),” Mecklenburg said, adding, “If you feel that you can’t be — then excuse yourself. That’s fine.”
Other jurors were skeptical as well. One asked Skiba, “So, the act of mirroring someone else doing, impeding without talking and expressly agreeing, we’re going to do this together, at the moment, you’re saying that constitutes conspiracy? So I see them pushing, I’m going to push too. That’s a conspiracy you’re saying?”
“Yes,” Skiba answered. “Under the law?” the juror asked. “And that’s — yes,” Skiba replied.
“One, it’s an overt action. They — it’s not they are just thinking in their head, I want to be part of this. They took some actions. They were — you know, there was a concerted effort to block this, Agent A, from doing his job.” There was, Skiba said, “a conspiracy implied by the conduct of the co-conspirators.”
But the second time was not the charm; the grand jurors returned another no bill.
October 23
Mecklenburg tried a third time to obtain an indictment a week later. But first she made an extraordinary admission to the grand jurors, acknowledging that she’d had communication with two grand jurors outside the jury room. One appears to have been the juror who termed her case “a crock of shit.”
One juror, she said, “apologized to me from last week, and I told (him) that I accepted his apology. I wasn’t mad. I understand people have feelings. (He) said at that time that he did have feelings, and he’s sure that he’s right, but he shouldn’t have walked out the way he did.”
Mecklenburg said she was approached by another juror, who said, “I’m sorry. I under- — I can apply the facts to the law. I understand that people have feelings, but we have to apply the facts to the law.”
“And I said, ‘That’s true. That’s exactly what we’re asking you to do,’ something like that, to the best of my recollection,” Mecklenburg said.
She then reiterated her contention that some grand jurors were not being “open minded” and able to deliberate fairly. She asked the jurors to “be honest” with their fellow jurors.
“What I am going to ask is that you’re all here. You all stay,” Mecklenburg said. “You all listen, and then when your — it is your time to deliberate, that you be honest with your fellow Grand Jurors. If you still feel like you are operating from feelings that prevent you from deliberating fairly with your fellow Grand Jurors and from applying the facts — the law to the facts here, then tell your fellow Grand Jurors that you can’t deliberate.”
One grand juror asked Skiba yet again to elaborate on “what it means to conspire,” to which Skiba replied, “A conspiracy is an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.”
“Do you need to do any advanced planning?” a juror asked. “No,” Skiba replied. “A conspiracy can be based on the spontaneous actions, plus the overt acts of the co-conspirators.”
Mecklenburg returned yet again to her implied contention that there is only one conclusion grand jurors could reasonably reach, and that if they did not see the case the way she did, it was because they were allowing their emotions to override the facts.
“I ask that you deliberate with each other in good faith,” Mecklenburg told them. “If anybody still feels that you can’t, then you have to be honest with your fellow Grand Jurors and tell them that your feelings about this are too strong, that they will not allow you to apply the fact — the law to these facts.”