Attorneys for the prosecutor at the center of the “Broadview Six” scandal said Thursday that U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros personally instructed her to get an expedited transcript of grand jury proceedings after she failed to get an indictment in the controversial case — a transcript that Boutros says he is “quite certain” he didn’t read for nearly six months.

The motion to intervene also revealed the 20-year veteran prosecutor, Sheri Mecklenburg, who allegedly committed a series of missteps in the grand jury proceedings last October, announced she was retiring Thursday after being told by bosses at the U.S. attorney’s office she was not permitted to file anything on her behalf “and could be disciplined or terminated if she did so.”

Mecklenburg’s attorneys, Sergio Acosta and Joel Bertocchi, who are both former federal prosecutors, asked U.S. District Judge April Perry to be able to present their side if the judge goes forward with a hearing on potential sanctions and prosecutorial misconduct by the U.S. attorney’s office in the Broadview case.

After four months of back-and-forth legal briefs, Perry is scheduled to hear arguments on the issue on Oct. 1.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office had no comment Thursday.

Attorneys for the Broadview Six have repeatedly called into question Boutros’ claim that he was emailed a transcript of grand jury proceedings in October 2025 after his team had failed to secure an indictment — but that he was “quite certain” he’d never opened it. That transcript eventually revealed that Mecklenburg on the case had improperly “vouched” for the strength of the evidence and dismissed grand jurors who were skeptical.

“The fairly stunning disclosure that the U.S. Attorney himself was directly sent a presumably expedited copy of the October 9, 2025, grand jury transcript, coupled with the questionable hearsay assertion that he does not think he read it, cry out for further inquiry,” a defense filing earlier this month stated.

Mecklenburg’s response Thursday offers a new perspective on what happened. She said her office has failed to explain that she “expressly and immediately advised the U.S. Attorney and other members of the Front Office” after the grand jury returned a no-bill on October 9, 2025.

Following Justice Department protocols, Mecklenburg only went back to the grand jury a week later “after receiving the instruction to do so” directly from Boutros, the motion stated. In its explanation of events to the judge last month, the U.S. attorney’s office “omitted the fact” that after her notification of the no bill, “the U.S. Attorney directed Ms. Mecklenburg to order an expedited copy of the October 9 grand jury session,” the motion said.

“She did so and promptly sent it to the Front Office, including the U.S. Attorney, as instructed,” Mecklenburg’s motion stated. “She did not try to hide anything she said or did in the October 9 grand jury session … Indeed, at every turn Ms. Mecklenburg kept the Front Office informed of all developments in the case and followed its instructions.”

The motion also alleged that attorneys for the former defendants in the case have unfairly maligned her for actions taken by her office long after she had withdrawn from the Broadview case and taken an unrelated assignment in Washington, D.C., including a decision to redact grand jury transcripts initially given to the judge for review.

The motion did acknowledge that Mecklenburg made missteps in the grand jury, including improperly “vouching” for the strength of the evidence, and that “to the extent that Ms. Mecklenburg made mistakes…she owns them.”

“At bottom, there is no basis for them to smear her with meritless accusations that she lied or acted in bad faith,” the motion stated. “The record as a whole shows, and if this motion to intervene is granted will further show, a prosecutor who did not act with animus or ill will, and certainly did not engage in any conduct in contempt of court.”

Mecklenburg’s request to intervene comes as Perry nears a decision on what, if any, relief to grant to the former defendants, who have asked for a hearing on potential sanctions as well as the possible appointment of special counsel to pursue contempt charges.

If Perry does go forward with public hearings, it would escalate the already unprecedented turmoil for Chicago’s storied U.S. attorney’s office, with high-level staff members, including potentially Boutros himself, being forced to answer questions under oath about their actions in the Broadview case.

Attorneys for the Broadview Six have believed since the get-go that the decision to indict the group of local Democratic activists — including then-Congressional candidate Katherine “Kat” Abughazaleh — for allegedly impeding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s vehicle during a Sept. 26, 2025, protest was politically motivated amid pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration to make an example of them.

Boutros, who was first appointed in March 2025 by then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, has publicly denied bringing any cases for political reasons.

In a filing explaining their position last month, prosecutors said that while mistakes were made, corrective measures have since been taken and there is no evidence of vindictive prosecution that would warrant further hearings or sanctions.

“This case involved irregularities during a time of immense pressure, upheaval, and emotion in the district because of Operation Midway Blitz,” prosecutors said in the motion, which detailed how the office has already been publicly rebuked by the court and had experienced prosecutors put under intense “public and private scrutiny.”

_____

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.