‘Broadview Six’ prosecutor pens fiery resignation letter saying US attorney pushed for felony charges

The now-retired prosecutor at the center of the “Broadview Six” scandal penned a fiery resignation letter to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros this week saying he “personally directed” her to seek felony charges rather than misdemeanors and then “publicly vilified” her in court by blaming her for the way the case melted down.

The three-page letter written by Sheri Mecklenburg, obtained Friday by the Tribune, accused Boutros’ office of placing her on leave and keeping her in the dark about it’s responses to the growing controversy, including an announcement that it was investigating all of her previous actions before grand juries dating back 20 years.

Mecklenburg also said Boutros failed to notify her about the May 21 court hearing where all charges were dismissed, saying she “had the indignity of learning about after-the-fact from the media.”

At the time, Mecklenburg was on another assignment in Washington, D.C., and a Tribune reporter informed her of the accusations that had been made that day in court.

“Since I was not present, I was a convenient target to be scapegoated and publicly vilified,” Mecklenburg wrote in the letter, which is dated Thursday and addressed directly to Boutros with “My forced retirement” as the subject line. “You recklessly agreed in court that I had committed misconduct without even asking for my account, fully reviewing the record or briefing the law.”

Mecklenburg’s letter was written in a manner that seems to be a precursor to legal action over her treatment. She slammed the U.S. attorney’s office for withholding key information in its August brief on potential sanctions, including “the fact that I repeatedly sought guidance from, kept informed, and followed the directions of the Front Office — including you — at every consequential stage.”

Mecklenburg wrote that when she tried to defend herself, she was placed on leave and had her devices and credentials cut off “without notice.” She’s also been threatened with termination, she said.

“Throughout all of this, I remained silent,” Mecklenburg wrote. “ … Your adverse actions from the beginning have forced me to retain personal counsel to defend conduct undertaken as part of my employment, yet you have refused to indemnify me for the substantial resulting expense. Despite the adverse impact on my finances, you cannot buy my silence by dangling continued leave.

The letter surfaced a day after Mecklenburg’s attorney alleged in a court filing that Boutros had personally instructed her to get an expedited transcript of grand jury proceedings after she failed to get an indictment in the controversial case — a transcript that Boutros says he is “quite certain” he didn’t read for nearly six months.

The motion to intervene also revealed Mecklenburg, who allegedly committed a series of missteps in the grand jury proceedings last October, wants to intervene and present their side if U.S. District Judge April Perry goes forward with a hearing on potential sanctions and prosecutorial misconduct by the U.S. attorney’s office in the Broadview case.

After four months of back-and-forth legal briefs, Perry is scheduled to hear arguments on the issue on Oct. 1.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office had no comment Friday.

Mecklenburg’s attorney, Sergio Acosta, also declined to comment.

Attorneys for the Broadview Six have repeatedly called into question Boutros’ claim that he was emailed a transcript of grand jury proceedings ion Oct. 14, 2025, five days after his team had failed to secure an indictment, but that he was “quite certain” he’d never opened it. That transcript eventually revealed that Mecklenburg had improperly “vouched” for the strength of the evidence and dismissed grand jurors who were skeptical.

“The fairly stunning disclosure that the U.S. Attorney himself was directly sent a presumably expedited copy of the October 9, 2025, grand jury transcript, coupled with the questionable hearsay assertion that he does not think he read it, cry out for further inquiry,” a defense filing earlier this month stated.

In a response filed Thursday evening, the Broadview Six attorneys said they fully support Mecklenburg’s motion to intervene because she has “substantial information” that relates directly to the issues at hand, including the “extraordinarily important revelation” about why the grand jury transcript was prepared and sent.

“In short, Ms. Mecklenburg — who is no longer subject to the threat of termination for providing information in this case — is now able to provide highly material evidence to the court that bears directly on the issues now before it,” the defense’s response stated.

Mecklenburg’s response Thursday officially breaks her monthslong silence and offers a new perspective on what happened. She said her office has failed to explain that she “expressly and immediately advised the U.S. Attorney and other members of the Front Office” after the grand jury returned a no-bill on Oct. 9, 2025.

Following Justice Department protocols, Mecklenburg went back to the grand jury a week later only “after receiving the instruction to do so” directly from Boutros, the motion stated. In its explanation of events to the judge last month, the U.S. attorney’s office “omitted the fact” that after her notification of the no-bill, “the U.S. Attorney directed Ms. Mecklenburg to order an expedited copy of the October 9 grand jury session,” the motion said.

“She did so and promptly sent it to the Front Office, including the U.S. Attorney, as instructed,” Mecklenburg’s motion stated. “She did not try to hide anything she said or did in the October 9 grand jury session. … Indeed, at every turn Ms. Mecklenburg kept the Front Office informed of all developments in the case and followed its instructions.”

The motion also alleged that attorneys for the former defendants in the case have unfairly maligned her for actions taken by her office long after she had withdrawn from the Broadview case and taken an unrelated assignment in Washington, D.C., including a decision to redact grand jury transcripts initially given to the judge for review.

The motion did acknowledge that Mecklenburg made missteps in the grand jury, including improperly “vouching” for the strength of the evidence, and that “to the extent that Ms. Mecklenburg made mistakes … she owns them.”

But she also defended asking any grand jurors who felt they could not be fair to not participate, saying it was department protocol to ask jurors who were biased to “excuse themselves from deliberating on the case.”

“Indeed, Ms. Mecklenburg repeatedly asked whether the grand jurors could listen to the facts and apply the law with an open mind,” the motion stated.

After one grand juror expressly stated they could not listen with an open mind — in fact, the juror called the case a “crock of s—” — Mecklenburg correctly, “if perhaps inartfully,” told the panel member to excuse himself, the motion stated.

“At bottom, there is no basis for them to smear her with meritless accusations that she lied or acted in bad faith,” the motion stated. “The record as a whole shows, and if this motion to intervene is granted will further show, a prosecutor who did not act with animus or ill will, and certainly did not engage in any conduct in contempt of court.”

Attorneys for the Broadview Six have believed since the get-go that the decision to indict the group of local Democratic activists — including then-congressional candidate Katherine “Kat” Abughazaleh — for allegedly impeding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s vehicle during a Sept. 26, 2025, protest was politically motivated amid pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration to make an example of them.

Boutros, who was first appointed in March 2025 by then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, has publicly denied bringing any cases for political reasons.

In a filing explaining their position last month, prosecutors said that while mistakes were made, corrective measures have since been taken and there is no evidence of vindictive prosecution that would warrant further hearings or sanctions.

“This case involved irregularities during a time of immense pressure, upheaval, and emotion in the district because of Operation Midway Blitz,” prosecutors said in the motion, which detailed how the office has already been publicly rebuked by the court and had experienced prosecutors put under intense “public and private scrutiny.”

jmeisner@chicagotribune.com