Federal prosecutors in Chicago have acknowledged that a Border Patrol vehicle involved in an alleged ramming incident may have undergone repairs before the defense could examine it, leading the court to schedule a hearing to investigate potential evidence tampering. This development raises serious questions about the preservation of critical evidence in a case that has already sparked public outrage and legal scrutiny.
On October 21, 2025, during a hearing in U.S. District Court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald DeWald informed Judge Georgia Alexakis that the SUV used by a Customs and Border Protection agent had been released and driven to Maine after the October 6 incident in Brighton Park. DeWald stated that repairs might have been attempted on the vehicle, but no report from a mechanic was available yet to confirm this. The agent involved, who shot Marimar Martinez during the altercation, was given approval to retrieve the vehicle from an FBI evidence garage in Chicago after it had been processed and photographed. This revelation came as a surprise to the defense, which had not been notified of the vehicle’s release.
Marimar Martinez has been charged with assault on a federal officer with a deadly weapon, alleging that she rammed the agent’s vehicle during a confrontation that led to her being shot. She has pleaded not guilty and was released on bond pending trial. Her attorney, Christopher Parente, has argued in court filings that the agent’s vehicle initiated the collision, making the condition of all vehicles involved critical to her defense. Parente filed a motion on October 20, 2025, asking the court to investigate the potential destruction of evidence, emphasizing that the defense was barred from any physical inspection while the agent drove the SUV cross-country.
In court, Parente expressed frustration over the disparity in treatment, noting that he was instructed not to touch the vehicles during his inspection, while the agent was permitted to drive the SUV approximately 1,000 miles to Maine. “I can’t touch these vehicles but he can drive it to Maine,” Parente told the judge. “That’s not how this works, Your Honor. I want my own experts to look at it.” He stressed that the impact damage on the vehicle is essential for reconstructing the events and challenging the prosecution’s narrative of the incident.
Judge Alexakis responded that she was “troubled” by the revelations and set a hearing for early November to hear testimony from the agent involved. She also scheduled the trial for early February 2026, but the evidence dispute could lead to delays or impact the trial’s outcome if the defense’s ability to present its case is compromised. The judge’s decision to hold a separate hearing underscores the seriousness with which she views the evidence handling issues, potentially setting a precedent for how similar cases are managed in the future.
The case has drawn significant attention due to its context within ongoing immigration enforcement operations in Chicago, which have fueled protests and debates over police practices. Previous court disclosures have revealed conflicts between official accounts and evidence, such as body camera footage that contradicted initial statements from the Department of Homeland Security. This latest development adds to concerns about transparency and accountability in federal law enforcement actions, particularly in incidents involving use of force.
The upcoming hearing will likely focus on whether the vehicle was altered and what steps the court should take to ensure a fair trial. Possible outcomes include ordering the vehicle to be returned to Chicago for defense inspection, dismissing charges if evidence is deemed irreparably compromised, or imposing sanctions on the prosecution. The situation highlights the broader challenges of evidence preservation in high-profile criminal cases, where mishandling can undermine public trust and judicial integrity.
As the legal process continues, the case remains a flashpoint in discussions about immigration policy and law enforcement conduct, with implications for how similar incidents are handled nationally. The court’s actions in the coming weeks will be closely watched, as they could influence not only Martinez’s fate but also standards for evidence management in federal prosecutions involving government agents.