Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens is scheduled to go before a three-person hearing committee of the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility on disciplinary charges stemming from her role as lead prosecutor in more than 200 criminal cases against people who were accused of felony rioting, conspiracy to riot and destruction of property as they protested Trump's first inauguration.
Attorney disciplinary authorities allege that Muyskens, who later left the U.S. attorney's office in Washington and went on to work as a federal prosecutor in Utah, edited and withheld video evidence that would have helped the defense, and made false and misleading statements to the court. The video footage at the center of the case was recorded by the conservative activist group Project Veritas.
Multiple defense attorneys and prosecutors who worked on the D.C. criminal cases are expected to testify in the disciplinary hearing, which will take place in person and also be live streamed.
Counsel for Muyskens, who in legal filings has denied misconduct, did not respond to requests for comment.
Scott Michelman, legal director for ACLU of D.C., said the attorney discipline system plays a critical role in accountability for prosecutors, noting that they have absolute immunity from civil liability for actions taken as part of their jobs.
Michelman said it's "all too rare" for prosecutors to face consequences for misconduct.
"With civil suits off the table as a deterrent for misconduct, the bar disciplinary oversight plays a starring role in checking prosecutorial abuses," he told Law360 Pulse in an interview. "And it may be our best hope for making sure that the prosecutors who are tempted to abuse their power and violate the Constitution don't do so."
The ACLU-D.C. secured a $605,000 settlement in 2023 for six plaintiffs who said that, in response to some acts of vandalism at the demonstration, Metropolitan Police Department officers rounded up over 200 people, most of whom had broken no laws, and detained them for up to 16 hours without access to food, water or bathrooms.
It was one among other settlements the district paid to protesters and journalists who were swept up in the mass arrest at the protest, where police fired pepper spray and flash-bang grenades at the crowds.
According to a July 2024 complaint from the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Muyskens and the government decided to charge everyone who was arrested "on the theory that everyone took part in a conspiracy to use a 'black-bloc tactic' by using all-black clothing, face coverings, and coordinated group tactics, to frustrate law enforcement and help the rioters."
Six defendants were acquitted at the first trial and the government later dismissed more than 100 cases, the complaint stated.
In its complaint, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel said that Muyskens relied on misleadingly edited videos from Project Veritas of meetings held by organizers with a group called DisruptJ20 in the run-up to Trump's inauguration.
According to the complaint, Project Veritas operatives had "infiltrated and secretly recorded" DisruptJ20's planning meetings by posing as supporters and wearing hidden cameras, and later gave police a hard drive of some of its videos.
Muyskens and MPD Detective Greggory Pemberton became the primary leaders of the government's investigation into the people arrested at the Inauguration Day demonstration, the complaint said.
Both understood that Project Veritas "had a reputation for editing videos in a misleading way," the disciplinary charges alleged. Muyskens and Pemberton also allegedly edited video in part to remove footage that could reveal the identity of a Project Veritas operative or reveal the group as the source of the recordings.
According to the disciplinary counsel's complaint, the government withheld video evidence that supported defense counsel's theory that defendants "expected and planned to participate in a nonviolent protest march and acted consistent with the nonviolent protest training and instruction that DisruptJ20 provided."
Muyskens "remained silent about the undisclosed videos" even after D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Morin ordered her to disclose everything in the government's possession and "explicitly directed her to disclose any 'statements about nonconfrontation, nonviolence,'" the disciplinary charges alleged.
The complaint also alleged that Muyskens made "false statements and material omissions" during an internal investigation by the Department of Justice into her handling of the cases, and during the probe by the disciplinary counsel's office.
She is charged with violating six D.C. rules of professional conduct, including those regarding candor, fairness to opposing parties and counsel, and the special responsibilities of a prosecutor.
In a statement to Law360 Pulse, Project Veritas board president Ben Wetmore said that the organization "turned over raw video to law enforcement, and then the government did some editing of the files that were turned over to the defense."
"We have no control over how our material is handled by government officials, and we stand by Brady v. Maryland and encourage all relevant materials to be disclosed," Wetmore said.
The Police Department and Pemberton, who is chairman of the D.C. Police Union, did not respond to requests for comment from Law360 Pulse.
Muyskens went on to prosecute federal cases in Utah, including those involving charges of fraud, money laundering, extortion and cyberstalking.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney's office in Utah told Law360 Pulse that Muyskens no longer works there, but declined to say when she left or to comment on the D.C. allegations.
The U.S. attorney's office in D.C. also declined to comment on the disciplinary case.
Her hearing is scheduled to run through Friday, with additional dates scheduled for March 24 through March 28. The hearing panel's recommendations can be appealed to the board, with the D.C. Court of Appeals having the final say on attorney discipline in the district.
One of the people acquitted in the first trial, Alexei Wood, told Law360 Pulse that he's eager to see how the hearing plays out. Wood, who was a freelance photojournalist at the time of the protest, was hit with eight criminal charges, including six felonies. He stood trial with five other defendants for more than a month in 2017 and could have faced more than 60 years in prison if convicted, he said.
It was "a traumatizing experience," he said, and "my whole career trajectory got derailed."
"It completely changed everything about my life," he said.
While he's still a professional photographer, Wood said he no longer works in photojournalism because he doesn't want to be in the thick of conflict anymore.
In 2023, Wood and another journalist were awarded a $175,000 settlement over their arrests after bringing claims against D.C. and the Metropolitan Police chief in a lawsuit filed by Hoyer Law Group PLLC.
The D.C. disciplinary counsel's office has brought ethics charges against several other federal prosecutors in recent years, including two who handled the Chandra Levy murder case.
In that case, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility in 2023 recommended a 60-day suspension for former prosecutor Amanda Haines, finding she withheld crucial information from the defense, but called for ethics charges to be dismissed against her onetime colleague, Fernando Campoamor-Sánchez.
The case involving Haines and Campoamor-Sánchez is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in January.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has not said what sanction it is seeking against Muyskens, and declined to comment on the case.
Muyskens is represented by Adam S. Hoffinger, Michael R. Sklaire and David G. Barger of Greenberg Traurig LLP.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is represented by Hamilton P. "Phil" Fox III and Sean P. O'Brien.
The case is In the Matter of: Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens, board docket number 24-BD-038, in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility.
--Editing by Robert Rudinger.
Update: This article has been updated with comment from the board president of Project Veritas.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
