After having faced a jury that was “hopelessly deadlocked,” unable to reach a unanimous verdict, Hector Saul Iraheta-Mercado will stand trial a second time in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington beginning Wednesday.
Iraheta-Mercado was charged with assaulting a federal officer after he rolled his window up and an ICE officer’s arm became stuck during a stop last July in East Wenatchee.
Though the affidavit says both officers reported they identified themselves and had “clearly visible badges,” a pre-trial hearing transcript states otherwise. Justin Lonergan, co-counsel for Iraheta-Mercado, said Iraheta-Mercado had family in the car, and the officers were in plain clothes and obscured badges.
“You can’t see Johnson’s badge at all for the entire duration. They're cussing at his family, telling them they don't, pardon my French, have to show them shit," the transcript reads. "It was a bad situation."
RANGE has not seen the footage of the interaction submitted to the court, but the jury will see it as the trial continues to unfurl.
The first jury trial Iraheta-Mercado faced began March 10 and lasted four days. The court declared a mistrial on March 13 when the deadlocked jury failed to reach a verdict after deliberating for about 11 hours.
The concept of Double Jeopardy, which protects people from being prosecuted twice for the same crime under the Fifth Amendment, may make you think Iraheta-Mercado can’t legally be tried twice. However, a second trial can happen in cases that resulted in a mistrial because the jury failed to reach a verdict.
This case follows a pattern that has been happening across the country since the second Trump Administration took office: the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleging the people they arrest are assaulting or resisting their officers and charging them with a federal felony. A February report from the Project On Government Oversight showed a fivefold increase in referrals for prosecution in such cases from 2024 to 2025, though dozens have been dismissed by prosecutors, rejected by grand juries and resulted in not-guilty verdicts.
For instance, a jury handed down a not guilty verdict last November to Martin Diaz, of Spokane, who had been accused of assaulting a Border Patrol officer, The Spokesman-Review reported.
The arrest
On July 8 of 2025, ICE officer Jaimie Waite pulled over Iraheta-Mercado in East Wenatchee and told him to get out of his vehicle, according to court documents. At the time, Iraheta-Mercado, who is described as a “non-English speaker” in court documents, had a warrant out for his arrest based on an order of removal.
But the defense noted in a court document that the order of deportation had been issued in Iraheta-Mercado’s absence and that there was no indication Iraheta-Mercado, originally from El Salvador, was even aware that he had been ordered deported.
Iraheta-Mercado provided his identification when asked but declined to step out of the vehicle, according to court documents. So Waite reached his arm into the driver’s window to open the door, but Mercado rolled it up. He started his car and put the gear into drive, the documents say. But they don’t say that Iraheta-Mercado allowed the car to actually move.
The affidavit alleges that Iraheta-Mercado trapping Waite’s arm was the assault. The prosecution’s brief states that Waite’s arm was injured, including bruising.
Waite and Andrew Johnson, another ICE officer who had arrived after surveilling Iraheta-Mercado’s home, drew their weapons and told him to stop the vehicle, according to the affidavit. Iraheta-Mercado complied, but Waite’s arm was still caught in the window so Johnson broke the passenger window and Waite broke the driver’s side window.
The two officers then forcibly pulled Iraheta-Mercado out and put him in handcuffs. He was charged with assault on a federal officer, under 18 U.S. Code § 111(a)(1), b.
The sections of the law hold that anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes” with a federal officer or employee carrying out their official duties will be fined, imprisoned on a maximum sentence of 20 years or both.
Iraheta-Mercado is detained at the Spokane County jail.
He sat through Wednesday’s jury selection with a headset translating the proceedings into Spanish for him. The jury will receive instructions Thursday and will then listen to opening statements.
Misuse of DOL data
With the second trial expected to last three days already underway, some new elements were presented before the court this week.
During a pretrial conference Tuesday, Judge Mary K. Dimke, at the request of the prosecution, ruled to allow evidence that Iraheta-Mercado had worked under false documentation.
As of Wednesday afternoon, two other items remained pending before Dimke. She’s expected to discuss these with the attorneys first thing Thursday morning. One was the request from the defense for the court to introduce impeachment evidence against the ICE agents. Impeachment can be used by attorneys to discredit a witness’ credibility during a trial.
Before Iraheta-Mercado’s first trial, his federal public defender Carter Power Beggs still had unanswered questions about how the ICE agents had obtained the information they used to find, surveil and ultimately detain him.
While the defense was unable to get answers from the government before the first trial, a public records request submitted to the Washington State Patrol (WSP) by the defense team came back with crucial information just days before the second trial was set to begin. Those records showed federal agents had used Washington Department of Licensing (DOL) data on the date Iraheta-Mercado’s warrant was signed to access information on him, like his home address and driver’s license. They again accessed his information the day agents testified they originally planned to arrest him, Powers Beggs said in a pre-trial conference.
Powers Beggs said it was concerning that ICE agents would use DOL data to apprehend someone with no criminal charges at the time because that violates the Keep Washington Working Act (KWWA), which bars state agencies from sharing such information. He also said it was a violation of the user contract for the software law enforcement agencies across the country use to share and access driver’s license data.
The KWWA prohibits the DOL, the (WSP) and other state and local agencies from using state government “funds, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, enforce, cooperate with, or assist in the investigation or enforcement” of civil federal immigration violations.
“They were misusing this tool to target Mr. Mercado,” Powers Beggs said. “The government is using improper surveillance techniques.”
The judge currently awaits further briefings from the legal teams on this issue. If she rules that the data-access evidence is admissible, Powers Beggs and co-counsel Lonergan could use it to impeach the officers’ character and supplement argument that their client had no idea he was being surveilled by the government, which goes to his shock and incomprehension when officers pulled him over.
Arguments heading into the trial
For the jury to declare Iraheta-Mercado guilty of assaulting Waite, the government must prove the alleged assault beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest legal standard for proof.
The government argues that Waite identified himself as law enforcement and that Iraheta-Mercado inflicted bodily injury.
The prosecution’s brief also states the government can overcome a claim of self-defense if they can prove only one of the following: that Iraheta-Mercado knew Waite was a law enforcement officer, that he didn’t “reasonably believe” it was necessary to use force in defense of immediate use of unlawful force or that he used more force than what seemed to be “reasonably necessary.”
The prosecution is also poised to argue that Iraheta-Mercado’s use of false information goes against claims that “he had no reason to expect law enforcement to be pulling him over and thus did not know (Deportation Officer) Waite was a law enforcement officer.”
The defense argues that at the core of the case lies the issue of knowledge and intent. An argument for self-defense applies if the defendant was unaware the person attacking them was law enforcement.
Additionally, the defendant must have intentionally hit the officer for forcible assault to have taken place, the defense argued in its brief. Simply resisting arrest or tensing up doesn’t meet the definition. The defense also cited U.S. v. Span, a case in which the court held that a claim of self-defense can be used even if the person is aware of law enforcement’s presence when excessive force is used.
“Importantly, the defenses are available not only where a defendant mistakes officers’ identity, but also their authority to arrest,” the defense’s document reads.
The defense also argued Iraheta-Mercado’s order of removal was obtained through an in absentia hearing, meaning he was not there, and that there was no evidence to indicate he was aware that he had been issued a deportation order.
The document shows the defense’s intent to object to the use of the word “fugitive” to describe Iraheta-Mercado. It was not immediately clear if the court had approved that.
“There is no indication that Mr. Iraheta-Mercado was in flight status or otherwise escaping arrest. As will be undisputed at trial, he was living under his true name with no indication that he was avoiding surveillance or law enforcement,” the trial brief document reads.
Reporter Erin Sellers contributed to this story.
