Written by Criminal Defense Attorney Jay Mykytiuk
As a federal criminal defense lawyer at Monument Legal, I have a front-row seat to the workings of the federal justice system, particularly here in Washington, DC. My clients often come to me facing what feels like an insurmountable challenge: the full power of the U.S. government. The federal charge of assaulting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111 is one of the most serious federal charges we see, and it’s one that has been at the forefront of the legal conversation in our city.
The legal landscape of Washington, D.C. has been fundamentally altered by the federal government’s increased presence and assertion of authority.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve watched as this influx has created a new and complex environment for the application of federal law, particularly the charge of assaulting a federal officer. The government has taken direct control of D.C. police and deployed federal agents and National Guard troops, raising profound questions about the balance of power.
The statute itself is deliberately broad, and that’s a significant part of the challenge from a defense perspective. It’s not just about a punch or a shove. The law criminalizes “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal officer. This expansive language means that what might seem like a minor altercation or a simple act of defiance can be elevated to a serious federal felony. We’ve seen cases where a defendant is charged with a felony for simply pushing an officer or blocking their path, acts that in other contexts might be considered misdemeanors.
The tiered penalty structure of the law gives prosecutors immense leverage. The most basic charge, a “simple assault,” is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. The stakes rise significantly for more serious assaults. An assault that involves physical contact or is committed with the intent to commit another felony can be a felony with a sentence of up to eight years. The most severe version of the crime—assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon or that results in serious bodily injury—is a Class C felony, carrying a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison. It is my job, as a defense attorney, to meticulously examine every detail of the case to challenge the government’s characterization of the event and argue for the least severe charge possible, or better yet, a complete dismissal.
A critical, and often surprising, aspect of this law for many people is the lack of a knowledge requirement. The government doesn’t have to prove that my client knew they were assaulting a federal officer. They only have to prove that the person they assaulted was, in fact, a federal officer and that my client’s conduct meets the criteria of the statute. This legal standard is a significant hurdle for the defense, as it removes a common-sense argument—that my client had no idea of the officer’s status.
The federal court in Washington, D.C. is an intensely scrutinized environment, and the cases involving assaults on federal officers are no exception. We are currently seeing a number of cases that highlight the complex and sometimes contentious nature of these prosecutions.
Take, for example, the case of a former Justice Department employee accused of throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent. On its face, the charge seems disproportionate to the act. My job in a case like this is to fight tooth and nail against what I see as prosecutorial overreach. When a federal grand jury declines to issue a felony indictment, as happened here, it’s a small victory for the defense and a sign that the justice system is questioning the government’s aggressive charging decisions. This outcome speaks to the importance of a vigorous defense from day one, from grand jury representation to trial preparation.
Similarly, a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent outside the D.C. jail had her case go before three separate grand juries before prosecutors were forced to accept a misdemeanor charge. This is not a common occurrence. It is a clear signal that even in the face of video evidence and a highly motivated prosecution, a strong defense can hold the government accountable and challenge the narrative they are trying to build. These are the victories we fight for—forcing the prosecution to justify their actions and convincing a grand jury that a felony charge isn’t warranted.
As a criminal defense lawyer, my role is to ensure that my clients’ rights are protected, no matter what they are accused of. The ongoing cases in D.C. involving the assault of federal officers are about more than just a single act. They are about the balance of power between the individual and the state. They are about whether the government can use a broad statute to pursue charges that may be out of proportion to the alleged crime.
The fact that grand juries are pushing back on the U.S. Attorney’s Office and that defendants are challenging these charges in court is a testament to the checks and balances within our legal system. It proves that the government’s version of events is not the only one that matters. It reminds us that every person, regardless of the accusations against them, deserves a robust defense.
At Monument Legal, we are committed to this principle. We work tirelessly to dissect the government’s case, challenge its assumptions, and fight for our clients’ best interests. The assault on a federal officer charge is a serious one, but it is not unassailable. And as long as there are individuals facing this daunting charge, there will be lawyers in D.C. ready to defend them.