Lead: Federal prosecutors moved on Friday to dismiss felony assault charges, with prejudice, against Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis after newly disclosed evidence undercut the government’s account of a Jan. 14 incident in Minneapolis that left Sosa-Celis wounded. U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen said the evidence was “materially inconsistent” with allegations in the criminal complaint and with testimony offered at a Jan. 21 hearing. U.S. District Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted dismissal with prejudice, barring refiling. The decision follows intense scrutiny of several recent shootings involving federal immigration agents where eyewitness accounts and video have challenged official narratives.
Key Takeaways
- Federal prosecutors asked a judge on Feb. 5 to dismiss charges against two Venezuelan men accused of assaulting an ICE officer; the request cites newly discovered evidence inconsistent with prior filings.
- Judge Paul A. Magnuson dismissed the case with prejudice, which prevents the government from refiling the same charges.
- The men, identified as Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, were involved in a Jan. 14 traffic stop that ended with a vehicle crash and a foot chase toward an apartment complex.
- An ICE officer shot Sosa-Celis in the upper right thigh during the encounter; Sosa-Celis and Aljorna were later arrested after barricading themselves in a residence where two young children were present.
- Defense attorneys say neither client has a violent criminal record and that the prosecution relied largely on the ICE officer’s account, which defense witnesses and available video did not corroborate.
- The move comes amid broader controversy over federal immigration enforcement tactics in the Twin Cities and fallout from Operation Metro Surge staffing changes in the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Background
On Jan. 14, 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers attempted to stop a vehicle driven by Alfredo Aljorna in Minneapolis; the driver crashed and fled on foot toward an apartment building. An ICE officer chased Aljorna and the government initially alleged that a violent struggle followed, during which other individuals emerged and attacked the officer with blunt objects. According to the complaint, the officer fired his service weapon, wounding Julio Sosa-Celis in the leg.
Those initial allegations formed the basis of felony assault charges filed against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota later filed a highly unusual motion saying newly discovered evidence undermined the government’s prior assertions. The case unfolded against a backdrop of heightened federal immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities under Operation Metro Surge, and recent high-profile shootings involving federal agents that prompted public and legal scrutiny.
Main Event
Prosecutors’ Feb. 5 motion, signed by U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen, did not publicly enumerate the new evidence but said it was “materially inconsistent” with allegations in the complaint and with representations made at a Jan. 21 detention hearing. At that hearing, discrepancies between the ICE officer’s account and eyewitness statements became apparent: neighbors and partners of the accused disputed the claim that the officer was struck with a snow shovel and broom handle.
FBI and ICE-affiliated affidavits previously described a sequence in which Aljorna fled a crash, was chased and struggled with an officer, and that others then assaulted the officer with objects. Sosa-Celis was shot in the upper right thigh during the encounter. The two men retreated into a nearby apartment; federal agents used chemical irritants to compel their surrender amid concerns for two children under age two inside the residence.
Defense lawyers said body-worn camera or other video evidence did not corroborate the officer’s version of being assaulted with a shovel and broom, and that witnesses contradicted the government’s narrative. One defense attorney said his client had a broomstick and threw it while running toward the house; another said his client had been carrying a shovel but was pulling away when the officer fired.
After reviewing the newly identified material, Judge Magnuson accepted the government’s request and dismissed the indictment, closing the criminal case against Aljorna and Sosa-Celis permanently.
Analysis & Implications
The dismissal underscores two intersecting trends: intensified federal immigration enforcement in certain U.S. cities and increasing judicial and public skepticism when officer accounts conflict with video and civilian testimony. Courts are giving substantial weight to corroborating evidence that either supports or undermines law enforcement narratives, particularly when the use of force is at issue.
For the defendants, dismissal with prejudice is decisive — it eliminates the immediate threat of federal prosecution and potential lengthy sentences. For federal agencies, the outcome raises questions about investigative practices, evidence preservation, and charging decisions, and could prompt internal reviews or policy adjustments to avoid similar reversals.
Politically and operationally, the episode feeds broader debate over Operation Metro Surge and resource allocations. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has experienced staff turnover since the surge began, which federal officials and local observers have linked to operational strain and increased scrutiny of enforcement actions.
Comparison & Data
| Key date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jan. 14, 2024 | Traffic stop, vehicle crash, pursuit toward apartment; officer fires, Sosa-Celis wounded |
| Jan. 21, 2024 | Court hearing where witness accounts and video raised inconsistencies |
| Feb. 5, 2024 | U.S. Attorney files motion citing newly discovered evidence; judge dismisses charges with prejudice |
The timeline highlights how a roughly three-week period of investigation, court proceedings and review produced a reversal of prosecutorial posture. The pattern mirrors other recent cases nationwide where video or multiple eyewitness accounts altered charging or disciplinary outcomes.
Reactions & Quotes
Defense counsel and family members greeted the dismissal as vindication. Before the court action, Aljorna and Sosa-Celis’ lawyers publicly disputed the officer’s account and stressed their clients’ lack of violent records and their work as DoorDash drivers to avoid contact with federal agents.
“They are so happy justice is being served by the government’s request to dismiss all charges with prejudice.”
Brian D. Clark, defense lawyer for Aljorna and Sosa-Celis
Federal and departmental spokespeople did not provide detailed public comment on the motion to dismiss. The U.S. Attorney’s Office auto-replied that it no longer staffed a public information officer, and the Justice Department in Washington did not respond to requests for comment on the filing.
“Newly discovered evidence in this case is materially inconsistent with the allegations against the defendants.”
Daniel N. Rosen, U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota (motion)
The incident also drew sharp political commentary. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, public officials criticized local leaders and described the event in stark terms; those remarks were part of a contentious public conversation about law enforcement, protest and federal authority.
“What we saw last night in Minneapolis was an attempted murder of federal law enforcement.”
Kristi Noem, public official who commented on the incident
Unconfirmed
- The specific contents and nature of the “newly discovered evidence” cited by prosecutors have not been publicly disclosed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
- There is no public record yet of any disciplinary action or internal investigation into the ICE officer who fired the shot.
- Reports that a third person participated in an assault on the officer remain contested and were not corroborated by the videos or witness statements presented at the Jan. 21 hearing.
Bottom Line
The government’s withdrawal of charges with prejudice in this Minneapolis shooting case removes the threat of federal prosecution for Aljorna and Sosa-Celis and highlights how new evidence can rapidly alter the legal calculus in use-of-force incidents. For prosecutors, the episode is a reminder of the evidentiary burden in cases alleging assault on officers and the consequences when corroboration is lacking.
For the public and policymakers, the case amplifies calls for clearer guidelines on evidence disclosure, stronger reliance on body-worn and surveillance video, and transparent review processes when federal agents use force. Observers should watch for any agency-level investigations or policy responses that follow the dismissal.