In Odd Ruling, Trump Judge Acknowledges Admin’s ‘Troubling’ Response to Pretti Killing, but Dismisses Concerns About Evidence Tampering
Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, issued an often contradictory ruling Monday evening, vacating his order requiring the preservation of evidence surrounding the killing of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection agents last month.
On one hand, he acknowledged that Trump officials’ statements absolving the agents of any culpability in the killing immediately after they shot Pretti were “troubling.”
“They reflect not a genuine interest in knowing the truth, but snap judgments based on speculation and motivated by political partisanship,” he wrote.
But the connection between the administration’s position on the fatal shooting and its intentions in terms of adequately preserving evidence of possible crimes committed is too “remote” for it to extend the temporary restraining order. He issued the initial order last week after the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office sued a series of administration officials and agencies, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, seeking access to the evidence.
Elsewhere, Tostrud acknowledges that after barring state investigators from the crime scene even when they returned with a warrant signed by the judge, federal agents allowed the scene to be invaded by bystanders. Indeed, the federal agents’ failure to prevent the spoliation and their refusal to cooperate at all with state agents served as the basis for Tostrud’s initial decision requiring preservation of the evidence.
Yet, he disconcertingly concludes, “concerns about past conduct have no substantial predictive value regarding defendants’ current evidence preservation practices.”
In other words, the administration’s clearly expressed disinterest in conducting a legitimate investigation, its allowing the crime scene to be breached in the hours after the murder, and its refusal to cooperate with state investigators do not undermine the judge’s confidence in his ability to follow the rules from here on out. Next time, Charlie Brown will probably kick Lucy’s soccer ball.
Some decisions are indecipherable. Here’s Tostrud’s calculation as to whether the potential for spoiled evidence causes irreparable harm to state investigators: “If I am correct that defendants are not likely to spoliate or destroy evidence related to Mr. Pretti’s shooting, it follows that plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm from spoliation or destruction. If I am wrong and assume spoliation is presumed, irreparable harm seems likely, but it is not certain.”
In the hands of another judge, such a risk would almost certainly justify the issuance of an injunction. If the government does not destroy the evidence, the plaintiffs will not suffer any harm, he wrote. That’s right – which is why the plaintiffs have provided “troubling” evidence that the government cannot be trusted not to do it, and are seeking a court order to ensure they don’t.
Read the decision here:
