Blue Press Journal

Tag: Renee Good case

  • Federal Stonewalling in the Renee Good Case Raises Serious Questions About Justice

    Federal Obstruction: Breaking Norms and Undermining Justice

    Blue Press Journal – The recent killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over transparency, accountability, and the role of federal law enforcement in local investigations. What should have been a cooperative, multi-agency effort to uncover the truth has instead devolved into a troubling example of federal obstruction — with the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) refusing to share critical evidence with Minnesota’s state investigators.

    Minnesota Attorney General Ellison made multiple attempts to resolve the situation privately, but his requests were ignored. Only after holding a joint press conference with the Hennepin County District Attorney did he receive confirmation: the directive to block state access reportedly came directly from President Trump, who publicly referred to Minnesota officials as “crooked.” This raises a troubling question — why would the FBI and DOJ prioritize political loyalty over transparency in a homicide investigation? Justice requires evidence, and withholding it undermines public trust.

    A Breakdown in Cooperation

    According to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the FBI initially agreed to work with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in a joint investigation. That agreement was abruptly rescinded, with federal agents reportedly withholding key evidence — including ballistic reports, weapon data, and crime scene materials — from state authorities.

    Ellison, who has a history of productive collaboration with federal law enforcement, attempted to intervene. He reached out to contacts within the FBI and DOJ to resolve the impasse, but his requests were ignored. Even a formal letter pleading for cooperation went unanswered. The silence speaks volumes about the federal government’s approach to oversight in this case.

    Political Interference at the Expense of Justice

    The most concerning revelation emerged when Ellison discovered the reason behind the denial of his requests: the directive to exclude Minnesota authorities seemingly originated from President Donald Trump. This political interference — alongside Trump’s public declarations branding Minnesota officials as “crooked” — severely compromises the integrity of federal investigations.

    The DOJ and FBI are supposed to serve the public interest, not political agendas. Yet the decision to block state investigators suggests that decisions within these agencies may be influenced more by partisan loyalty than by a commitment to truth.

    A Troubling Double Standard

    Even more disturbing is the selective release of evidence. While federal authorities refused to share investigative files with state officials, video footage from Ross’s cellphone was leaked to Alpha News, a Minnesota-based right-wing media outlet. This raises legitimate questions:

    • If the evidence is too sensitive to share with official investigators, why is it being provided to a partisan outlet? 
    • Does this behavior reflect professional investigative standards — or an attempt to shape public perception before all the facts are known?

    Ellison called this move “fundamentally unprofessional” and noted that the leaked footage undermines any rationale for withholding evidence from state authorities.

    Echoes of the George Floyd Case

    Ellison’s office previously prosecuted the officers responsible for George Floyd’s murder in 2020, an effort that relied heavily on gathering every available piece of evidence. He recognized a familiar pattern here: when government agencies are connected to a controversial killing, certain officials attempt to smear the victim’s character.

    In the case of Renee Good, Ellison has been outspoken in defending her reputation. He emphasized that she was neither a domestic terrorist nor a threat to Ross at the time of the shooting, and that she was engaged in helping her vulnerable neighbors.

    Why Transparency Matters

    The refusal of the FBI and DOJ to cooperate with Minnesota’s investigation sends a dangerous message: federal agencies can act without meaningful oversight, even in cases involving lethal force against civilians. This erodes public trust and undermines the principle that justice must be both done and seen to be done.

    Without full access to the evidence, state investigators are forced to rely on incomplete information, raising the risk of an inadequate or flawed conclusion. For the family of Renee Good — and for the public — this is unacceptable.

    A Call for Accountability

    The Renee Good case is more than an isolated incident. It is a test of whether the FBI and DOJ are truly committed to transparency, fairness, and cooperation with local authorities. If federal agencies can unilaterally block state-level investigations into killings by federal agents, then our system of checks and balances is in jeopardy.

    Minnesota officials will continue their parallel investigation, seeking information directly from the public. But the broader question remains: will the FBI and DOJ choose accountability over political expediency?

    Until they do, cases like Renee Good’s will serve as stark reminders that justice delayed — or denied — is justice betrayed.

  • Prosecuting Federal Agents Under State Law: The Renee Good Case

    Minnesota prosecutors face legal hurdles in the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer.

    Blue Press Journal – Prosecuting federal agents for alleged crimes is legally complex, but it is neither unprecedented nor impossible. The recent case involving the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minnesota highlights both the challenges and possible avenues available to state and local prosecutors seeking accountability. 

    Background of the Case

    On January 7, Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer during an encounter in Minnesota. Newly released video footage appears to show Good attempting to drive away safely, raising questions about whether the officer’s actions complied with established law enforcement protocols. 

    Despite the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s request for evidence, the FBI announced it would not share its investigation files with state authorities. This decision has complicated the prosecutorial process, with Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty noting that without the FBI’s case file, making a charging decision may be difficult. 

    State Authority to Prosecute Federal Agents

    Under U.S. law, states have the right to prosecute federal officials when they violate state criminal statutes. A key precedent is the 1906 Supreme Court case Drury v. Lewis, which affirmed that federal officers can be prosecuted if they operate outside the bounds of lawful authority or use unauthorized force. 

    However, federal agents often claim immunity by arguing their actions were necessary, reasonable, and proper for carrying out federal duties. Determining whether an agent’s conduct meets this standard requires an extensive factual analysis and can be a lengthy process. 

    The Immunity Challenge

    Immunity claims hinge on whether a judge finds the agent’s actions to be authorized under federal law. This involves a step-by-step examination of each act taken during the incident, assessing whether it aligns with legal duties or constitutes excessive or unauthorized force. 

    Historical cases, such as the Ruby Ridge standoff in 1992, show how disagreements between state and federal authorities over basic facts can stall or derail prosecutions. In the Good case, public statements from federal officials may further complicate matters, as they could be used to frame the incident in a way favorable to the defense. 

    Potential Legal Avenues

    Even if criminal prosecution proves challenging, civil remedies remain available. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), victims or their estates can sue the federal government for monetary damages. In such cases, plaintiffs may argue that the agent’s conduct was “rogue” or outside the scope of lawful duties, and seek declarations that constitutional rights were violated. 

    Why State Action Matters

    The Good case highlights the need for state and local governments to use their legal authority when federal accountability is obstructed. While immunity laws pose challenges, they do not offer complete protection against unlawful conduct. Thorough investigation and strategic litigation are essential for upholding the rule of law and pursuing justice.