FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 5, 2025
Misconduct Hearing Starts March 11 for Federal Prosecutor Charged with Altering, Concealing Key Evidence in 2017 Inauguration Day Protest Cases
Assistant US Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens Lied to the Court, Defense Counsel About Videos from Alt-Right Group Project Veritas Used to Prosecute Over 200 People
WASHINGTON, DC – The Assistant US Attorney who prosecuted more than 200 people on felony conspiracy and riot charges for protesting on Inauguration Day 2017 was charged, herself, in July with ethics violations stemming from those prosecutions, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for March 11-14 with the DC Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR). The BPR has accused former DC prosecutor Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens of professional misconduct for her role in hiding key video evidence and lying about it to the court, defense lawyers, and internal investigators at the Department of Justice. The Bar investigation and charges are a result of ethics complaints filed in 2018 by two Inauguration Day defendants.
What: Disciplinary hearing for former DC AUSA Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens
When: March 11-14 and March 24-28, beginning at 9:30am each day
Where: Courtroom II, DC Court of Appeals, 430 E Street NW
The charges against Kerkhoff Muyskens involve key state evidence she used against the activists at trial—secretly-recorded video footage she obtained from the discredited alt-right group Project Veritas, well known for its political motivations and deceptively edited videos. During the first trial, Kerkhoff Muyskens falsely claimed that video footage of a January 8, 2017 protest planning meeting was unedited and was the only footage the prosecution possessed. But, Kerkhoff Muyskens had edited the footage to exclude potentially exculpatory evidence and lied about the amount of video footage her office had obtained from Project Veritas—a hard drive containing a total of 69 individual video and audio recordings.
According to BPR Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, who filed the charges against Kerkhoff Muyskens, the federal prosecutor violated the DC Rules of Professional Conduct in half a dozen ways, including “making false statements, offering false evidence,” as well as “obstructing the defense’s access to evidence and altering or concealing evidence,” and “reckless or intentional dishonesty, misrepresentations, deceit, and fraud, which misled the grand jury, the defense, the court, the government, and disciplinary authorities.”
“Not only was the government colluding with Project Veritas—a publicly disgraced, far-right political group well known for doctoring footage to suit their narrative and a stated goal of undermining progressive causes and mainstream media—Kerkhoff Muyskens deceptively edited Project Veritas footage and used it as key evidence at trial,” said Olivia Alsip, one of the former Inauguration Day defendants who filed an ethics complaint against Kerkhoff Muyskens in 2018. “She also lied about the amount of video footage the prosecution had obtained from the far-right group.”
On January 20, 2017, Inauguration Day for then-incoming president Donald Trump, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) obstructed and violently attacked an anti-capitalist and anti-fascist march in downtown DC, then minutes later surrounded and trapped hundreds of activists, journalists, medics, legal observers, and bystanders, using a tactic called “kettling,” which has been outlawed in DC as a result of previous lawsuits against MPD and the district. During the first inauguration-related trial in fall 2017, the jury acquitted all six defendants, causing the prosecution to dismiss more than 100 cases.
It was revealed during the second trial in May 2018 that the Project Veritas footage had been edited by the prosecution to exclude evidence helpful to the defense. And it was only after the defense team demanded to interview the videographer that they discovered there were a number of other undercover Project Veritas videographers and dozens of other videos that were provided to MPD. As a result of these revelations and the clear violation of evidentiary rules, known as Brady violations, the trial judge sanctioned the prosecution by dismissing conspiracy charges against all of the remaining defendants. The second trial ended with the acquittal of one defendant and the jury acquitting or deadlocking on charges against the others. Soon after, the prosecution dismissed all charges against the remaining defendants.
Kerkhoff Muyskens worked closely with then-lead MPD detective Greggory Pemberton to mislead the defense and the court. During the first trial, they both aggressively fought to conceal the fact that the prosecution’s key video evidence came from Project Veritas. After being forced to reveal the source of the footage, Pemberton still denied a working relationship with the alt-right group, claiming he found the footage while perusing the Internet. It would later be revealed that Project Veritas met with MPD, the US Attorney’s Office, and the FBI, more than a week before Inauguration Day to detail their infiltration plans to law enforcement, according to pleadings filed by the DC Bar. Backing up claims made by Kerkhoff Muyskens, Pemberton lied under oath about the number of videos Project Veritas turned over to the prosecution.
During cross-examination of Pemberton in the first Inauguration Day trial, the lead detective was questioned about his bias against the defendants. In particular, Pemberton was asked about disparaging comments he made over social media about the Black Lives Matter movement, as well as the right-wing figures and groups he follows, like Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, Breitbart, and a far-right an account associated with /pol/, one of the main far-right online hubs known for its racist, white supremacist, misogynist, and anti-LGBTQ content. In 2020, Pemberton was elected DC Police Union Chair, a position he holds today.
“Kerkhoff Muyskens has faced accusations of Brady violations before but has never been disciplined. How many times will this happen before she is disbarred for her blatant and self-serving misconduct?” continued Alsip. “Justice can be surprisingly rare in the legal system, but I’m hoping this time will be different. People impacted by the legal system on a daily basis deserve better.” A study of over 800 cases from state and federal courts found Brady violations had occurred in ten percent of the cases, and prosecutors were almost never referred to the Bar for discipline.
Three lawsuits filed by defendants, journalists, and others arrested on Inauguration Day were settled in the years following the failed prosecutions. The District of Columbia paid out more than $1.6 million to settle lawsuits claiming that DC police violated people’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, and arrested more than 200 people without probable cause.
According to its website, the Board on Professional Responsibility states that disciplinary hearings are “generally guided, but not bound, by provisions or rules of court practice, procedure, pleading, and evidence.” In contested disciplinary proceedings, “the Hearing Committee prepares a report and recommendation, with proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended sanction, which is filed with the Board.” Possible sanctions against Kerkhoff Muyskens include suspension or revocation of her license to practice law. At the time the disciplinary charges were filed against Kerkhoff Muyskens, she was working as an Assistant US Attorney in Utah, although she has since been removed from all pending cases.
###
This press release was published by supporters of the more than 200 people
prosecuted for protesting Trump’s first inauguration on January 20, 2017, known as J20.
For more information about the J20 cases, go to: https://bit.ly/defendj20resistance.
