A man shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis was charged with assaulting law enforcement. A startling admission ended the case | CNN

<h3>18 U.S.C. § 1621 — Perjury (false statements under oath)</h3><ul><li>ICE publicly admitted its agents made “false statements” under oath, and DOJ referenced video evidence “materially inconsistent” with the charging allegations.</li><li>If the agents’ sworn statements concerned key facts used to justify force/arrest (who was driving, alleged assault with a shovel/broom, circumstances of the shot), those are plausibly material to judicial determinations (probable cause, detention, charges).</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 1001 — False statements (within federal jurisdiction)</h3><ul><li>DOJ moved to dismiss with prejudice stating prosecutors provided incorrect information to the court, while ICE acknowledged agents made false statements; the statements were tied to initiation and maintenance of federal criminal charges.</li><li>Video review allegedly contradicts the narrative used as the basis for charges, supporting an inference of knowing/falsifying conduct rather than mere mistake (investigation needed on intent and who authored/approved specific assertions).</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 1503 / § 1512 — Obstruction / witness tampering (judicial proceeding interference)</h3><ul><li>Submitting or inducing materially false sworn accounts that underpin criminal charges can constitute corrupt interference with the due administration of justice if done knowingly to mislead court/prosecutors.</li><li>Key gap: article does not specify which precise statements were sworn, who made them, and whether any agent acted “corruptly”; however, the agency admission and dismissal-with-prejudice posture indicate serious obstruction risk pending investigation.</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 242 — Deprivation of rights under color of law</h3><ul><li>Allegations include an “unreasonable use of force” shooting and a purported fabrication of facts to justify it; if willful, this can implicate constitutional violations (Fourth Amendment) under color of law.</li><li>Gaps: the article does not establish willfulness beyond dispute or provide the video’s contents; exposure depends on what the footage shows about threat level and intent.</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy (to defraud the United States / commit offense)</h3><ul><li>If multiple federal actors coordinated a false narrative (DHS release, affidavits, sworn testimony) to support charges and justify force, conspiracy exposure could attach.</li><li>Gap: no explicit agreement described; inference depends on overlap in false accounts and coordinated filings/communications revealed by investigation.</li></ul><b>Conclusion:</b> This is not a money-for-official-act pattern but a high-risk law-enforcement integrity case involving admitted false sworn statements and case-dispositive misinformation, creating substantial potential criminal exposure for perjury/false statements/obstruction and possible color-of-law violations, subject to proof of intent and materiality.</p>