Anti-Israel encampment defendant says he’s being ‘selectively prosecuted’

DA contends motion has already been decided

Muhammad Ali, who was arrested in June 2024 in connection with his participation in anti-Israel encampments at the University of Pittsburgh, will have to wait a while longer to learn if a judge will consider his claim of selective prosecution.

Selective prosecution occurs when certain defendants are charged with crimes while others in similar situations are not charged under the same procedures.

Ali has been charged with aggravated assault, riot with the intent to commit a felony, failure to disperse and obstructing the administration of law or other government functions.

At a Jan. 22 hearing in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas, Assistant District Attorney James Sheets argued to Judge Jennifer Satler that Ali’s motion claiming selective prosecution already was argued before two separate judges and was denied each time. Both of those judges, Sheets pointed out, recused themselves after ruling on the motion.

Sheets asked Satler how many bites of the apple Ali and his attorney, Aaron Sontz, were entitled to, arguing that the judge should refuse to hear the defense’s motion.

Sontz argued that the issue had not been fully litigated by the previous two judges and that, in order for justice to be served, his client’s current motion should be heard and the evidentiary record reopened.

Sontz added that he was unable to participate fully in previous hearings because he didn’t have the power to investigate that the state did and that potential witnesses had ignored his subpoenas.

The defense attorney attempted to cast doubt on the previous two rulings, saying that Ali should have been given the benefit of the doubt and that there would be no harm to the state if the motion was heard by Satler.

In order for selective prosecution to be proven, the defense must show that Ali was prosecuted while others who committed the same acts were not, and that the prosecution was done in bad faith because of the defendant’s race or religion, or to prevent the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional rights.

Sheets questioned Ali’s claim that any of those conditions were met. He noted that others being prosecuted for charges related to the encampments are white and not Muslim.

Continuing to make his case for selective prosecution, Satler said that Ali had been exercising his constitutionally protected rights to protest, and seemingly blamed University of Pittsburgh Police Lt. Brooke Riley — who maintains she was injured by Ali and other rioters at the encampment — for the state’s unwillingness to offer a plea deal to the defendant.

Satler, however, was unsure if she had the authority to hear the motion, she said, and asked the defense why it did not file an interlocutory appeal of the previous motion. The defense attorney did not offer a reason for that failure.

Satler also raised the question of forum shopping — the practice of trying to find a court that is likely to yield the most favorable judgment.

In the end, Satler said she wasn’t ready to hear the motion.

“We’re not there yet,” she said.

Instead, the judge asked the defense attorney to prepare a brief within the next 30 days explaining why she has the authority to hear the motion. The state will then have 30 days to respond to the brief and Satler will have an additional 10 days to respond to the briefs, meaning a scheduled February trial for Ali will be continued.

Ali was joined in the courtroom by approximately two dozen supporters, some donning keffiyehs, others medical masks. PJC

David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchronicle.org.