Judge REJECTS DOJ’s Attempt to Erase Conviction

A Reagan-appointed federal judge delivered a stunning rebuke to the Justice Department’s attempt to erase a police excessive force conviction, rejecting DOJ’s audacious claim that prosecutors alone define what serves the “public interest” in American courtrooms.

Story Highlights

Judge Wilson blocks DOJ’s post-sentencing dismissal of police excessive force conviction
Court rejects prosecutor’s claim that “government says what the public interest” is in courtroom
Four-month prison sentence for former sheriff’s deputy stands despite DOJ opposition
Ruling reinforces separation of powers and judicial independence from executive overreach

Judge Defends Constitutional Separation of Powers

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson delivered a forceful defense of judicial authority on August 11, 2025, denying the Department of Justice’s unprecedented attempt to dismiss a police excessive force conviction after sentencing. The Reagan appointee ruled that DOJ’s motion under Federal Rule 48(a) was contrary to the public interest and represented an impermissible attempt to erase a duly imposed four-month prison sentence for former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy Trevor Kirk.

Wilson’s order directly confronted Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Keenan’s brazen assertion that “what the government says is the public interest in this courtroom” should control dismissal decisions. The judge characterized this position as legally wrong and a breathtaking overreach of prosecutorial power. This ruling stands as a crucial check against executive branch attempts to override judicial sentencing authority through backdoor dismissal motions.

Background of Police Excessive Force Case

The case originated from a June 24, 2023 incident outside a WinCo store in Lancaster, California, where Kirk used excessive force against civilian Jacey Houseton while on duty. A federal jury convicted Kirk on February 6, 2025, of civil rights violations under 18 U.S.C. § 242, finding he deprived Houseton of constitutional rights under color of law.

Following the conviction, DOJ requested probation for Kirk, but Judge Wilson imposed a four-month custodial sentence instead. Rather than accept the court’s judgment, DOJ then filed the extraordinary post-sentencing dismissal motion, with Kirk’s defense team consenting to the government’s attempt to void his conviction entirely. The maneuver represented an end-run around the judicial process that Wilson ultimately rejected.

Judicial Pushback Against Prosecutorial Overreach

Wilson’s denial emphasized that Rule 48(a) requires “leave of court” specifically to ensure dismissals serve the public interest rather than prosecutorial convenience. The judge noted that while executive charging discretion remains robust before conviction, such power becomes constrained by judicial oversight once a case proceeds through trial and sentencing. Courts retain independent authority to assess whether dismissals truly serve justice.

The ruling cited historical precedent and separation of powers principles, establishing that prosecutors cannot unilaterally define public interest standards for courts. Wilson found that allowing the dismissal would effectively nullify the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentence, undermining the integrity of the criminal justice process. Kirk has been ordered to surrender on August 28 to begin serving his sentence.

Broader Implications for Justice System Integrity

This decision carries significant implications for prosecutorial accountability and judicial independence nationwide. Legal expert Eugene Volokh noted that Wilson’s rationale reinforces courts’ gatekeeping role in preventing dismissals that would interfere with proper sentencing. The ruling may deter future attempts to use post-conviction dismissals as mechanisms to avoid imprisonment when prosecutors disagree with judicial sentences.

The case occurs amid internal turmoil at the Central District of California U.S. Attorney’s Office under newly appointed U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, with media reports highlighting staff resignations and concerns over policy departures from DOJ norms. Wilson’s ruling represents the first significant courtroom setback for the new leadership, signaling that judicial oversight will continue regardless of prosecutorial preferences or political considerations.