One of many, many acts of totally peaceful protest allegedly carried out by various Anti-ICE organizations was an attack at the Prairieland (ICE) Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. This article includes how law enforcement officials described the attack:
Details emerge about ICE detention facility attack in Alvarado — but still many questions https://t.co/3qS3vbECNh
— Bert Powers (@BertPowers6) July 28, 2025
From the article:
Federal court documents that were unsealed earlier this week say that people wearing body armor and black military-style clothing descended on the Prairieland ICE detention facility in Alvarado late at night on July 4. They carried high-powered flashlights, two-way radios and set off fireworks toward the detention center, according to the court documents.
They allegedly carried cans of spray paint and wrote ‘ICE Pig’ and ‘Traitor’ on cars in the parking lot. A person in a green mask standing in the woods reportedly signaled as correctional officers approached the people spraying graffiti.
Department of Homeland Security officers at the center called 911. When an Alvarado police officer arrived, the shooting began. Court documents say two people in the woods, including the person wearing a green mask, shot about 30 rounds of bullets with AR-15 style rifles. The Alvarado police officer was shot in the neck and is expected to recover from his injuries.
Thus, the government’s point of view was that the fireworks and graffiti were designed to draw out law enforcement into an ambush. But naturally, the government has to prove that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, and every defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
But you knew that last part, didn’t you?
That brings us to yesterday, when they began jury selection in the federal trial arising out of these events. But a mistrial was declared during what lawyers call voir dire (a term Texas lawyers intentionally mispronounce (if you know, you know))—what amounts to questioning the jury to see if they can rule impartially. There are several accounts of what happened but we consider this to be the most credible because it is the most detailed:
Judge declares mistrial in Prairieland ICE shooting trial over lawyer's 'politically charged' shirt The shirt, which appeared to show civil rights protestors, led Judge Mark Pittman to halt jury selection. https://t.co/le3crZj9cu
— Oremus4Pacem (@1032shotsfired) February 18, 2026
(By the way, there is nothing objectionable about what appears in the image—it is just lawyers walking down the street—but lately Twitter/X has been over-labeling media this way.)
From the article:
A federal judge in Fort Worth declared a mistrial in the case of nine Prairieland ICE detention center shooting defendants Tuesday in response to an attorney’s shirt emblazoned with a ‘politically charged message.’
The shirt — worn by Maricela Rueda’s defense attorney MarQuetta Clayton — bore black and white images of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Shirley Chisholm and other people and scenes from the civil rights movement.
She appeared to wear it in honor of Jesse Jackson. The civil rights icon died Tuesday morning at the age of 84.
Judge Mark Pittman halted jury selection after getting frustrated with Clayton’s questioning, then noticing her shirt.
‘I don’t know why in the world you would think that’s appropriate,’ Pittman told Clayton.
The mistrial came after a vocal portion of the pool of 75 prospective jurors expressed anti-ICE and anti-President Trump sentiments when questioned by the judge and Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Smith.
The decision is not likely to bring an end to the case, in which the nine defendants are accused of being part of a ‘North Texas antifa cell.’ All are accused of being involved in the non-fatal shooting of a police officer outside the Prairieland Detention Center after what defendants say was a July 4 noise demonstration outside the building.
Jury selection will start again with a new jury pool on Monday. Clayton, who was seen leaving the courthouse with her shirt turned inside out, declined to comment. Pittman said Clayton would have to return for a hearing at some point to determine whether she’d be sanctioned for her shirt.
Clayton was the first defense attorney to begin questioning jurors. She began by noting the constitutional right to protest and mentioned Jackson’s death.
Then Clayton asked jurors whether they knew the difference between a noise demonstration, a protest and a riot. Her co-counsel Lesa Pamplin brought a poster board that seemed to juxtapose images of seemingly peaceful protests with a fiery riot.
Pittman admonished Clayton for bringing the board without telling the court or prosecutors and ordered Clayton not to use it.
Clayton then asked potential jurors whether they believed a peaceful protest could cross the line into becoming a riot. She asked the pool to say on a scale of 1 to 5 — 1 being agreeing, 5 being disagreeing — whether they believed guns should be brought to a protest.
After a few answers, Pittman told Clayton to stop with her questioning and scolded her for not making good use of her time. Pittman gave the defense 10 minutes per defendant to question the jury — Clayton’s questioning had taken 22 minutes, he said.
Pittman asked the jury to leave the room for a five-minute break then said he intended to call for a mistrial, something he said he’s never done before. He expressed concerns over the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal appeals court for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi — overturning the verdict in the case if he didn’t declare a mistrial.
‘It’s what (the shirt is) suggesting that’s improper,’ he told attorneys.
Smith didn’t express whether he supported a mistrial, but all the defense attorneys opposed the move, with some saying they hadn’t noticed the shirt.
While Pittman said he admired King and Chisholm, he likened Clayton’s shirt to a prosecutor wearing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement pin, or ‘a shirt with Donald Trump riding an eagle’ with an ICE flag.
‘Politics — as prevalent as they are, as divided as they are — don’t have any business here,’ he said.
Because she turned her shirt inside out after the incident—probably under the judge’s orders—we can’t find a picture of the shirt, allowing us to nail down for ourselves whether or not the shirt was that prejudicial. After all, while we called the reason for a mistrial ‘weird’ in the headline, we are not saying the judge is necessarily right or wrong. If the judge is right, it is weird that the lawyer wore such clothing. If the judge overreacted, then that is weird. It really depends on how prejudicial we think the T-shirt is and we can’t judge for ourselves right now. And the article suggests it was not just the T-shirt but also the poster board that was referenced.
Still, regardless of what was on the T-shirt, we would also note that no lawyer representing actual clients before a court should ever show up to court in a T-shirt without extremely strong justification (like the lawyer’s only good suit being covered in mud a la ‘My Cousin Vinny’) if only because you don’t look professional when don’t wear some kind of business formalwear. In that role, you are officially an officer of the court and the judge will often see that as reflecting poorly on the institution of the court.
On the other hand, there is some room for personal expression in what you wear to court. Whenever this writer would appear in court, we would habitually wear a lapel pin with the American and Philippines flag on it (to honor the heritage of this author's wife), and a tie clasp with a cross on it. No one batted an eye at that slight degree of 'flair.'
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) February 18, 2026
Other lawyers have other low-key elements of personal expression on their otherwise appropriate clothing. But a T-shirt or big photographic displays on something that otherwise counts as business formal clothing is a terrible idea.
(Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, if you find yourself appearing as a party or witness in a case, particularly as a defendant in a criminal case, dress as nice as you can. Showing up in a pro-marijuana themed T-shirt when charged with drug possession is rarely a good look even if your state has eliminated laws criminalizing that particular drug. Try to wear something like a suit if you have one. Judges are more tolerant of informality for civilians, but this kind of behavior never helps you, but dressing nicely might be useful so why not do that?)
Back to the news, it also turns out that the lawyer in question wants to be a judge:
BLM activist, defund-police advocate, & Tarrant Co. judge candidate MarQuetta Clayton delayed the Elmfork John Brown Gun Club Antifa Terror Case trial by wearing a civil rights icons T-shirt to jury selection on 2/17/26. Judge Pittman called it “politically charged,” declared… pic.twitter.com/LnbQeeKwU3
— MarsnByond (@MarsnByond) February 18, 2026
The cut off text:
...declared mistrial after 20 mins despite opposition. Jury dismissed; reselection 2/24 w/130 jurors; Clayton faces sanctions hearing. #AntifaTrial
Finally, as a bit of pointless legal nerdity, we weren’t kidding about Texas lawyers mispronouncing ‘voir dire.’ It is a French term shoved into English—presumably as a result of the Norman conquest—and it is supposed to be pronounced something like ‘vwah deer.’ But Texas lawyers and judges famously pronounce it more like it looks: vore die-er. That was probably at one point in time an accident but this author became convinced that it is intentional, now, after one incident when he was working in Texas and accidentally pronounced the term ‘correctly’ (meaning 'Frenchly'), and was immediately met with mockery: ‘Listen to that Easterner talk!’ So, we are pretty sure Texas lawyers continue to ‘mispronounce’ the term as a way to make outsiders self-identify.
Which is pretty funny, if we are right.
RELATED: ‘Do Not Wonder Why We Go BERSERK:’ More on the Transgender Hockey Shooter’s Background
Bad News: The Silence of the Lambs Has Been Canceled
BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join Twitchy VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member