Federal prosecutors in Minneapolis have filed a motion seeking to dismiss felony assault charges with prejudice against two Venezuelan men—Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa‑Celis—alleging newly discovered evidence contradicts the government’s account of events during a Jan. 14 ICE incident. The motion, submitted on Feb. 11 in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserts that the new evidence is “materially inconsistent” with claims made in the original criminal complaint and subsequent court testimony, making dismissal appropriate.

The original allegations, according to a Department of Homeland Security statement and federal filings, centered on a traffic stop gone awry. Agents attempted to stop Aljorna’s vehicle, which crashed before he fled on foot. The government contended that during a struggle between an ICE officer and Aljorna, Sosa‑Celis and a third person emerged from a nearby apartment and assaulted the officer with a snow shovel and broom handle. The officer responded by firing a shot that struck Sosa‑Celis in the thigh, and the individuals reportedly retreated into an apartment where they were arrested.

However, at a Jan. 21 hearing on potential release pending trial, inconsistencies emerged. Eyewitnesses, including the defendants’ partners and a neighbor, testified that no assault with a broom or shovel occurred. Available video footage also failed to corroborate the officer’s version. The defendants maintain they were retreating when the shooting occurred—Aljorna said he threw a broom as he ran, and Sosa‑Celis said he held a shovel but did not use it to attack. Their attorneys noted the prosecution’s case hinged almost entirely on the officer’s testimony.

The pending dismissal aligns with a broader national pattern in which federal cases involving alleged assault on law enforcement have faltered under scrutiny of video or eyewitness evidence. It follows high‑profile shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis that likewise drew public attention and raised concerns over enforcement narratives.

While the U.S. Attorney’s filing does not detail the precise nature of the new evidence, coverage by CBS News indicated that video surveillance “was materially inconsistent with the federal agent’s claims,” prompting Attorney Frederick Goetz to praise the decision as demonstrating “integrity and professionalism.”

If the court grants the motion to dismiss with prejudice, the charges cannot be refiled. It remains unclear whether federal immigration authorities may still pursue other administrative actions, such as deportation.

Why this matters to Cowlitz County and the Lower Columbia Region

This case reflects growing scrutiny over federal immigration enforcement tactics and accountability. While the incident occurred in Minneapolis, it carries relevance—freeze for readers—because federal operations, particularly ICE actions, often bypass local jurisdictions and can have ripple effects across communities. In Cowlitz County and nearby regions, understanding how federal agencies operate, and whether local public safety or rights protections are upheld, remains critical. Cases like this underscore the importance of local vigilance, transparency, and clarification of citizen rights when federal law enforcement is involved.

Moreover, the case illustrates how new evidence—particularly video or witness testimony—can significantly alter legal outcomes. Local residents should take note: documentation and oversight matter, even far beyond major urban centers.