Court reporter Steven J. Brickey (transcript); proceedings conducted by AUSAs Sheri Mecklenburg and Matthew Skiba for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, N.D. Ill.; filed in United States v. Rabbitt et al. (the Doc. 230 caption; an earlier version of this note said “Abughazaleh et al.”), No. 1:25-cr-00693 (2026), U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, No. 1:25-cr-00693, Document #219 (released to the public) — https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28220756-10925/
Key takeaways
- The released 9 Oct 2025 transcript shows the lead prosecutor telling the grand jury that she had waited for this panel because “I know you and I trust you … and I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn’t think there was probable cause”. It also shows jurors pressing on the conspiracy and impeding theories. Press reports say this session ended in a “no bill”, and that the presiding judge later found prosecutorial errors in this line of proceedings.
Seeded from the abstract and a skim, before the reading in NOTE-033. What follows is what the work says about itself.
This is the transcript of the first federal grand jury session (Special June 2024 Grand Jury, N.D. Ill.) at which prosecutors sought to indict six protesters over a 26 Sept 2025 confrontation with an ICE supervisor’s vehicle outside the Broadview, Illinois, processing facility. The charges sought were felony conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §372) and misdemeanour counts under §111. An agent narrated protest videos, and the prosecutor then explained the law and answered jurors’ questions. Press coverage reports that this panel declined to indict (a “no bill”) and that an indictment was returned only at a third presentation, on 23 Oct 2025. The case later collapsed, and Judge April Perry ordered the transcripts released on 9 June 2026.
Standing in the record
Filed from the survey of 2026-09-25 of work the anthology set aside as out of scope (tier C): 325 seconds of active reading over 1 session in the papers-feed tracker. It was filed Deferred, unread. NOTE-033 is the close reading of 2026-09-25, and it placed the work: Active — This is the complete primary record of the first, reportedly no-billed, presentation. It is the document a reader should consult on the vouching and presentation questions, rather than press paraphrase.
When seeded, before the reading in NOTE-033, the entry gave a priority for a deeper reading: low — The 9 Oct session has been skimmed in full as filed, and the controversy lies more in the 16 Oct and 23 Oct sessions. Read those only if the anthology commits to holding court records (t = 325 s, 1 session).
What the seeding asked a deeper reading to check (NOTE-033 is that reading):
- It is a primary court record and should be reported neutrally. Characterising the conduct as misconduct is attributed to the judge’s findings as reported and to defence counsel, not to this transcript itself.
- A deeper reading should obtain the DocumentCloud copy, or the docket entry, to check whether the testimony pages (pp. 11–52) were released. It should also pair this session with the 16 Oct session (Doc. #220; juror dismissed after calling the case “a crock”) and the 23 Oct session, which are in the same CNI PDF.
- The anthology relevance is thin. It is filed, like the other held court records, as society-and-governance material.
Access when seeded: DocumentCloud (the page, its API and its asset hosts) returned Cloudflare 403 blocks, so I could not confirm what document 28220756 contains. Its slug “10925” suggests 10/9/25. I reached the same proceedings through a 200-page PDF of the released transcripts hosted by Capitol News Illinois (2026-06-09-BROADVIEW-SIX-Grand-Jury-Transcript-October-23.pdf). Its first 35 pages are Case 1:25-cr-00693 Document #219, filed 06/09/26: the 9 Oct 2025 session, which I read. The filed version jumps from transcript page 10 to page 53, so the agent’s direct testimony (transcript pp. 11–52) is not in it. Whether the DocumentCloud copy is fuller is unverified. Case context comes from Capitol News Illinois (Hannah Meisel, 2026-06-10) and Block Club Chicago (2026-06-09). The published date is the filing/public-release date; the proceedings themselves took place on 2025-10-09. The case caption is inferred from the defendant list in press coverage, and the formal caption is unverified.