![ICE Agent's Criminal Case Exposes Evidence in Renee Good Shooting [2025]](https://tryrunable.com/blog/ice-agent-s-criminal-case-exposes-evidence-in-renee-good-sho/image-1-1770417398893.jpg)
Introduction: When Two Cases Collide
There's a peculiar intersection where criminal procedure meets accountability, and it doesn't always happen where you'd expect. In Minnesota, that intersection is becoming increasingly visible. A federal assault case involving an ICE agent named Jonathan Ross isn't primarily about the death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old poet and mother of three. But the defense team representing Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala is arguing it should be. And they might have a point.
On January 7, 2025, Ross shot and killed Good during what Immigration and Customs Enforcement called Operation Metro Surge, a targeted enforcement action in Minneapolis. By all official accounts, the killing has been closed. The Department of Justice announced it would not pursue criminal charges against Ross, as reported by The New York Times. The Department of Homeland Security placed him on administrative leave, described as standard protocol after fatal use of force, according to NBC News. The investigation files remain largely sealed. The details, the justification, the circumstances that led to Good's death have been withheld from public view.
But here's where things get complicated. Six months earlier, in June 2024, the same Jonathan Ross was involved in a very different incident. During an immigration enforcement encounter in Minnesota, a man named Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala allegedly dragged Ross with his car, causing injuries. Muñoz-Guatemala was arrested, charged, and convicted in December on federal assault charges. His legal team is now fighting back, and their strategy reveals something prosecutors and ICE officials may not have wanted exposed: the details about Jonathan Ross's conduct, his training, his history of enforcement actions, and potentially his judgment on the field.
What makes this situation remarkable is how the legal system sometimes creates unexpected windows. Defense attorneys are leveraging discovery rules—the obligation that prosecutors turn over relevant evidence—to demand information about Ross that might otherwise stay buried. They're asking for training records. They're seeking investigative files. They're building a narrative that Jonathan Ross's behavior in the June incident might shed light on his credibility, his judgment, and his approach to enforcement operations. Whether that leads to new information about Good's killing remains to be seen. But the motion itself, and the arguments within it, raise uncomfortable questions about oversight, accountability, and what happens when federal agents operate with minimal transparency.
The case has drawn attention from civil rights advocates, immigration reform groups, and observers who've watched the federal justice system struggle with questions of police accountability. It's not about defending Muñoz-Guatemala's alleged actions. It's about whether the public—and a jury—deserves to know more about the officer involved.
TL; DR
- Federal assault conviction: Roberto Muñoz-Guatemala was convicted in December 2024 of assaulting ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who allegedly dragged him during an enforcement operation, as detailed by FOX 9.
- Connection to Good's killing: The same Jonathan Ross shot and killed poet Renee Good in January 2025 during ICE enforcement, but details remain sealed, as noted by Vera Institute of Justice.
- Discovery strategy: Muñoz-Guatemala's defense team is demanding investigative files and training records about Ross to challenge the conviction and explore sentencing factors.
- Evidence gap: Prosecutors have withheld details of Good's killing investigation, but the assault case could force disclosure of information about Ross's conduct and tactics.
- Accountability question: Civil rights advocates argue the cases highlight broader issues with federal agent oversight and transparency in immigration enforcement, as discussed by UnidosUS.
The Jonathan Ross Timeline: Two Incidents, One Pattern
Understanding how these cases became intertwined requires a clear chronology. Jonathan Ross didn't appear in headlines because of anything good or bad. He appeared because of actions that, depending on perspective, were either justified enforcement or aggressive tactics.
The first incident, chronologically, occurred in June 2024. ICE agents, including Ross, were conducting enforcement operations in Minnesota. Court records indicate they were attempting to interview or apprehend individuals without proper immigration authorization. Muñoz-Guatemala was in a Nissan Altima when agents surrounded the vehicle. Ross, according to his own testimony, was wearing ranger green and gray clothing and had his badge on his belt. What happened next became the subject of a federal trial, as reported by The New York Times.
Ross testified that he used a tool to break the rear driver's side window. He reached inside, presumably to remove Muñoz-Guatemala from the vehicle or control him. When Muñoz-Guatemala accelerated, Ross was dragged approximately 100 yards. During the dragging, Ross repeatedly deployed a taser. The incident lasted seconds but resulted in injuries and charges.
Muñoz-Guatemala's account differed. He claimed he didn't understand Ross was law enforcement. The agent wasn't clearly identified, hadn't announced himself as federal law enforcement, and appeared to be attacking him without explanation. Muñoz-Guatemala called 911 afterward to report he'd been the victim of an assault. That detail is crucial. He reported his attacker to police. Guilty people rarely do that voluntarily.
The trial proceeded with jury instructions that essentially created two pathways to conviction. Jurors could convict if they believed Muñoz-Guatemala should have known Ross was law enforcement. They could also convict if they believed driving away was not a reasonable response to what Muñoz-Guatemala experienced. The jury convicted. No one knows which reasoning pathway they followed.
Then came January 7, 2025. Jonathan Ross was part of Operation Metro Surge. The target was Renee Good. Why Good was targeted remains unclear from public records. What is clear is that she was shot and killed during the operation. She was 37 years old. She had three children. She was a poet and community member. And she's now dead, as noted by WBUR.
The government's narrative: Ross fired in self-defense or in defense of others. The evidence: sealed. The investigation: concluded without charges. The transparency: minimal.
The Question of Reasonable Force: Did Muñoz-Guatemala Know?
The core of Muñoz-Guatemala's conviction rested on a deceptively simple question: Did he know Jonathan Ross was a federal law enforcement officer?
This matters because if someone knows they're being detained or controlled by law enforcement, they generally can't resist. Federal law prohibits assault on a federal officer. It's a serious crime. But if someone doesn't know an unmarked officer is law enforcement, their legal obligations change. They have the right to resist what could reasonably appear to be an unlawful attack or kidnapping.
Ross testified that Muñoz-Guatemala asked to speak to an attorney. If true, this request would strongly suggest Muñoz-Guatemala understood he was dealing with law enforcement. An innocent person confronted by what appears to be a random attacker wouldn't ask for an attorney. They'd ask who the attacker is or call for help.
But here's where the case gets murkier. An FBI agent who witnessed the incident said he didn't hear any request for an attorney. Ross's claim about this request never appeared in pretrial interviews. Prosecutors said they hadn't heard about it before Ross mentioned it in court testimony. It's what lawyers call a surprise claim, and surprise claims create credibility problems. If something so significant had happened, why didn't Ross mention it earlier? Why did prosecutors learn about it for the first time during trial?
The jury still convicted. But what reasoning did they use? The legal standard gave them two options, and no one knows which they chose. That ambiguity is precisely what Muñoz-Guatemala's defense team is now exploiting. If the jury convicted based on the second prong—that driving away wasn't a reasonable response—then evidence about Ross's conduct becomes relevant. If Ross was acting aggressively, approaching the vehicle in a threatening manner, and didn't clearly identify himself as law enforcement, then driving away might actually be a reasonable response to a perceived threat.
Discovery Demands: What Defense Attorneys Are Asking For
Muñoz-Guatemala's legal team filed a motion requesting specific evidence. They're not asking for vague or speculative information. They want defined, documentable material: training records related to Jonathan Ross and investigative files about his conduct.
Why these specific requests matter is worth unpacking. Training records can show what Ross was supposed to do in certain situations. They establish standards. If ICE training emphasizes clear identification of officers before physical contact, and Ross failed to provide that identification, his training records become evidence of misconduct. They show he deviated from protocol.
Investigative files about Ross create a different kind of picture. They could include prior complaints, incident reports, disciplinary records, or patterns of conduct. If Ross has a history of aggressive approaches to enforcement, if he's been involved in other incidents involving force, if supervisors have documented concerns about his judgment, all of that becomes relevant. It establishes a pattern.
The defense is arguing something important: whether someone is justified in resisting law enforcement depends partly on how law enforcement behaves. If an officer approaches in a threatening manner, fails to identify himself, and initiates physical contact, a reasonable person might resist. That resistance might be legally justified even if the person is eventually told the officer's identity.
This is where the Renee Good case becomes unavoidable in the conversation. If Jonathan Ross is involved in two separate incidents involving force—the dragging with Muñoz-Guatemala and the shooting of Good—a pattern becomes visible. That pattern is relevant to credibility, judgment, and the questions any jury should ask about how he operates in the field.
The Administrative Leave Puzzle: Where Is Jonathan Ross?
One detail that's remained notably unclear is Jonathan Ross's current status within ICE. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed that he was placed on administrative leave following the January 7 shooting of Renee Good. They described this as standard protocol after fatal use of force. Reasonable enough, at surface level.
But questions linger. Administrative leave is often temporary. It's a pause, a cooling-off period, an opportunity for investigation. What happened after that investigation concluded? Has Ross been cleared to return to duty? Has he been disciplined? Has he resigned? Has ICE moved him to a different role? The public doesn't know.
This opacity creates a vacuum. When information isn't available, people assume the worst, assume the best, or assume there's something being hidden. In this case, all three assumptions are probably partly correct. DHS and ICE have incentives to be opaque. They don't want to prejudge investigations. They don't want to appear to be either rushing to exonerate or rushing to condemn their own agents. So they say nothing, and the void fills with speculation.
The Muñoz-Guatemala case suddenly makes that opacity impossible. The motion filed in federal court is public record. The request for discovery is documented. A judge will have to rule on whether prosecutors must turn over the information. That ruling will be appealable, likely creating even more public process. The machinery of the federal courts, once engaged, doesn't stop easily. It churns forward, creating precedent and documentation.
From an accountability perspective, this is what matters. The formal legal process forces disclosure. Investigations can stay sealed. Departments can remain silent. But discovery motions, court filings, and judge rulings require public documentation. That's the crack through which light enters.
Renee Good: Who She Was and What We Don't Know
It's worth pausing to remember that this story, at its center, is about a death. Renee Nicole Good was 37 years old. She was a mother of three children. She was known in her community as a poet. She had a life, relationships, and value. That life ended on January 7, 2025, during an ICE enforcement operation.
What we know about the circumstances is frustratingly limited. The government has not released a detailed account of what happened. No body camera footage has been made public, or may even exist. No witnesses have been interviewed and reported on by independent media. No photographs of the scene have been disclosed. What we have is the official statement that a shooting occurred and that Ross was not criminally charged.
The Department of Justice's decision not to pursue charges is itself important. It suggests that the Justice Department reviewed the incident and concluded that no federal crime had been committed. Self-defense claims are powerful. If prosecutors believe a shooting was legally justified as self-defense, they won't bring charges. That's how the system works.
But self-defense is a legal conclusion, not an objective fact. It depends on circumstances, perception, and judgment calls. Whether an officer reasonably feared for their safety when they fired the shot that killed Good is exactly the kind of question that should be answered with evidence, not assumption.
The tragedy is that the public will likely never know the full story unless forced through litigation. Muñoz-Guatemala's case may provide that forcing mechanism. But it may not. Courts sometimes rule that information about one case isn't relevant to another, even when connections exist. The judge could order limited disclosure. The parties could settle. The case could fade.
What seems certain is that someone's death deserves more explanation than the government has provided.
The Legal Strategy: Mitigating Factors and Sentencing
Muñoz-Guatemala's defense team is being careful and strategic. They're not arguing that their client is innocent of the charges. They're not claiming the jury verdict was wrong. What they're doing is something more subtle and in some ways more powerful: they're using sentencing law to force information into the open.
The argument goes like this: even if the conviction stands, even if Muñoz-Guatemala doesn't get a new trial, he's entitled to a fair sentencing. Sentencing judges are supposed to consider all relevant factors when deciding prison length. If Ross's conduct was aggressive or unjustified, that could constitute a mitigating factor. It could suggest that Muñoz-Guatemala's response, while criminal, was understandable or less culpable than it would otherwise appear.
This is clever lawyering because it doesn't require proving innocence. It requires proving only that there are facts relevant to sentencing that the judge should know. It's a lower bar. It's also consistent with how federal sentencing is supposed to work. Judges are supposed to consider context. They're supposed to understand the full picture of what happened, not just the narrow legal question of guilt or innocence.
The motion also asks for a pause on deadlines while the discovery issues are resolved. This is procedurally important because it prevents the case from moving forward without the information being disclosed. Defense attorneys are essentially saying: we can't responsibly move to sentencing without knowing more about what happened with Jonathan Ross.
This strategy reveals something about how the legal system works. When the normal channels for transparency fail—when investigation details stay sealed, when DOJ decisions aren't explained—other parts of the system can create pressure. Discovery rules, sentencing provisions, and appellate standards all have transparency built into them. A creative defense team can use these tools to force information into public view.
The Training Records Question: What ICE Instructors Tell Agents
One of the most important requests in the discovery motion is for Jonathan Ross's training records. This might seem dry and administrative, but it's actually crucial to the case.
ICE agents receive training on how to approach individuals, how to identify themselves, how to use force, and how to handle dangerous situations. That training is documented. There are standards, best practices, protocols. When an agent deviates from that training, it becomes evidence of wrongdoing. It shows that the agent knew what they were supposed to do but did something different.
For example, if ICE training requires agents to clearly announce themselves as federal law enforcement before initiating physical contact, and Jonathan Ross broke a car window without announcing himself first, that's a deviation from training. It's evidence that he acted against protocol. Whether that protocol deviation contributed to the confrontation becoming violent is then a legitimate question.
Training records also establish timelines. When did Ross receive specific training? What did he know about proper procedures at the time of the June incident? Was he a new agent who might not have fully absorbed protocols, or an experienced agent who should have known better? These contextual details matter.
Defense attorneys will argue that if Ross has training records showing proper protocols, and evidence that he deviated from them, that supports their client's argument that Ross's approach was aggressive or improper. Prosecutors will likely argue that training records are irrelevant to whether Muñoz-Guatemala knew Ross was a federal officer, the core legal question. A judge will have to decide which argument wins.
Investigative Files: What Could They Reveal?
The other major request is for investigative files related to Jonathan Ross. This is broader than training records and potentially more revealing.
Investigative files could include prior complaints about Ross's conduct. If someone has previously alleged that Ross used excessive force, approached them inappropriately, or violated procedures, that information would be relevant. It would establish a pattern. Patterns matter in law because they help courts understand someone's typical behavior.
These files could also include incident reports from other enforcement operations where Ross was involved. If Ross has been involved in multiple confrontations involving force, each one documented, the cumulative picture becomes important. It suggests this is how Ross typically operates.
Internal discipline records could also be part of these files. Has ICE ever disciplined Ross for misconduct? Has he been reprimanded, suspended, or subjected to additional training because of prior incidents? If yes, that's evidence relevant to his credibility and judgment.
Personnel files might include supervisory evaluations or notes. Have supervisors expressed concerns about Ross's judgment, his approach to enforcement, or his decision-making in the field? Would superiors have placed him in charge of sensitive operations like Operation Metro Surge if they had doubts about his reliability?
The challenge for prosecutors will be arguing that this information is private personnel information entitled to protection. That's a legitimate argument. Agents have some privacy rights. Investigations have some confidentiality. But courts increasingly recognize that when an agent's credibility is at issue in a criminal case, privacy interests sometimes give way.
The balance between privacy and transparency in this context is genuinely difficult. No one wants federal employees to have no privacy. But no one should want federal employees who abuse their power to hide behind privacy protections. The courts will have to find that balance.
The Self-Defense Question in Immigration Enforcement
One argument that Muñoz-Guatemala's defense team is making, or may make, relates to self-defense in the immigration enforcement context.
When federal agents conduct immigration enforcement, they often operate in unmarked vehicles, wear plain clothes, or provide minimal identification. This approach has tactical advantages. It reduces the chance that targets will flee before agents make contact. It puts agents in a position to control situations.
But it creates a problem: people being approached don't know they're being approached by law enforcement. From their perspective, they're being approached by strangers who are acting aggressively. In those circumstances, self-defense becomes a complicated question.
The law in most jurisdictions says you can't use force against a police officer, even if you don't know they're a police officer. That's the legal standard. But reasonableness factors into it. If an officer makes their status known, if they announce themselves clearly, if they identify themselves before physical contact begins, the legal standard is straightforward. You can't resist.
But if an officer doesn't clearly identify themselves, if physical contact is initiated without announcement, if the person being approached reasonably perceives a threat, the analysis becomes murkier. Self-defense law generally allows people to use reasonable force to resist unlawful attacks or kidnappings. If someone doesn't know they're being approached by law enforcement, they might reasonably perceive what's happening as an unlawful attack.
Muñoz-Guatemala's defense will likely argue something along these lines: even if my client was eventually told that Ross was a federal officer, at the moment he accelerated to escape, he didn't know that. He perceived an aggressive stranger breaking his car window and reaching toward him. Accelerating away was a reasonable response to a perceived threat. The fact that it turned out to be a federal officer doesn't make his response unreasonable, because he didn't have that information at the time.
This argument doesn't mean Muñoz-Guatemala was justified in assaulting an officer. But it might mean his culpability is less than the prosecution argues. A judge could conclude that while the conviction stands, the sentence should be lighter because of the circumstances.
It's also an argument that becomes stronger if discovery reveals that Jonathan Ross's approach was more aggressive than typical, if he failed to follow standard protocols for identification, or if he has a history of approaching enforcement situations in ways that create conflict.
The Broader Question of ICE Accountability
Beyond the specific facts of these two cases, something larger is happening. The Muñoz-Guatemala case is shining a light on a broader accountability problem: ICE agents operate with minimal oversight, minimal transparency, and minimal external accountability.
ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security. When ICE agents use force, especially when that force results in death, the investigation is usually internal. DHS investigates its own agents. There's an obvious conflict of interest in that arrangement. The agency has incentives to clear its employees, to defend their actions, to minimize criticism.
When a death occurs, the federal government can decide to prosecute the agent or not. The Department of Justice made that decision regarding Jonathan Ross. They decided not to prosecute. That decision isn't subject to appeal. The public doesn't get to challenge it in court. It's final.
This creates a system where deaths in immigration enforcement are largely outside public accountability mechanisms. If you die at the hands of an ICE agent, there's no guarantee your death will be investigated independently, that the evidence will be made public, or that the officer will face consequences. The system is designed that way, mostly by default rather than by explicit choice.
The Muñoz-Guatemala case is important precisely because it potentially cracks that system open. It's not about Renee Good directly. Her case is closed. But the litigation in the assault case could force information about Jonathan Ross into the public record. That information might shed light on patterns, on judgment, on how he operates in the field. And that light, however indirect, is something the system usually keeps dim.
The June Incident: How Muñoz-Guatemala Got Charged
Let's return to the June 2024 incident and examine what actually happened according to court records.
ICE agents were conducting enforcement operations in Minnesota. Muñoz-Guatemala was in a parked or slowly moving vehicle. Court records don't specify exactly where the interaction began or whether agents initiated contact or Muñoz-Guatemala initiated contact.
What is clear is that at some point, multiple agents surrounded Muñoz-Guatemala's Nissan Altima. The vehicle became the focus of their enforcement action. They apparently intended to remove Muñoz-Guatemala from the car to detain him, likely to process him for immigration violations.
Jonathan Ross was part of this enforcement operation. He used a tool, likely a tactical tool designed for breaking windows, to shatter the rear driver's side window. This is a forceful action. It's meant to gain control of a vehicle by disabling it or by providing access to the driver. It's the kind of action you'd take if you believed the person in the vehicle was a flight risk or a danger.
Ross then reached into the vehicle through the broken window. Presumably he was trying to control Muñoz-Guatemala or remove him. But instead of remaining in the vehicle, Muñoz-Guatemala accelerated. Ross was dragged, remaining partially outside the vehicle as it moved.
Ross deployed a taser while being dragged. A taser is meant to incapacitate someone through electrical shock. Using it while being dragged suggests Ross was trying to stop the movement or regain control. The taser was deployed repeatedly, meaning Ross used it more than once as he was being dragged the approximately 100 yards.
Muñoz-Guatemala eventually stopped and was arrested. The injuries Ross sustained during the dragging were documented. Then Ross pressed charges: assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon causing bodily injury.
The case proceeded to trial. Muñoz-Guatemala's defense was that he didn't know Ross was a federal officer. A jury heard arguments from both sides. The jury convicted. Muñoz-Guatemala is now facing sentencing.
This is the incident that's now potentially opening doors to information about Jonathan Ross's conduct, his training, and his judgment.
The Role of Civil Rights Advocates
Civil rights organizations have been watching this case. Groups focused on immigration rights, police accountability, and federal overreach are interested in what happens with Muñoz-Guatemala's motion and what information might emerge.
These organizations see patterns in ICE enforcement. They document cases where immigration enforcement has resulted in injury or death. They track arrests, deportations, family separations, and the consequences of immigration enforcement operations. They advocate for stronger oversight, clearer procedures, and greater accountability.
The Muñoz-Guatemala case is relevant to their work because it's one of the few cases where a defense team is actually pushing back, actually demanding evidence, actually creating a process that could expose more about how ICE operates. If they succeed in getting discovery materials, those materials could be shared with advocacy groups, analyzed, and added to a broader picture of ICE enforcement practices.
Advocacy groups also track cases where federal agents are involved in multiple incidents. If Jonathan Ross is involved in the June assault case and the January shooting, that's relevant information. It's the kind of detail that advocacy organizations flag and publicize. It contributes to conversations about whether specific agents, or ICE generally, should be reformed or restricted.
The involvement of civil rights advocates doesn't determine legal outcomes, but it can shape how cases are understood and what becomes public knowledge. These groups file amicus briefs, they contact media, they organize public awareness. They're part of how accountability sometimes happens in systems that don't make it easy.
What Prosecutors Must Prove: The Legal Standard for Assault on a Federal Officer
The charge against Muñoz-Guatemala is specific: assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon causing bodily injury. This is a serious charge, carrying significant prison time.
For prosecutors to prove this charge, they must establish several elements. First, Jonathan Ross must have been a federal officer. That's straightforward. Ross was an ICE agent, definitely a federal officer.
Second, Muñoz-Guatemala must have assaulted Ross. Assault is generally defined as intentionally causing bodily injury or intentionally placing someone in reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. The dragging clearly caused bodily injury. If Muñoz-Guatemala accelerated the vehicle knowing Ross was outside it, he intentionally caused that injury.
Third, the weapon element. The charge specifies assault with a dangerous weapon. The car itself is considered a dangerous weapon. A vehicle moving at speed with someone being dragged beneath or alongside it is undoubtedly dangerous.
Fourth, Ross must have been acting in his official capacity, not acting unlawfully himself. This is where questions about Ross's conduct become relevant. If Ross was acting in violation of procedures or protocols, or if he was acting unlawfully himself, that could affect the legal analysis.
The jury found Muñoz-Guatemala guilty on these elements. But as noted, the jury didn't specify which aspects of the instructions they relied on. They could have convicted on the basis that Muñoz-Guatemala knew or should have known Ross was a federal officer, or they could have convicted on the basis that his response was unreasonable regardless. That ambiguity is what the defense team is now trying to clarify.
The Administrative Law Dimension: DHS Policies and Procedures
Another dimension to this case involves administrative law and Department of Homeland Security policies.
DHS has regulations governing how its agents are trained, how they're supposed to conduct enforcement operations, and what's expected of them in terms of proper identification and use of force. These regulations aren't just bureaucratic requirements. They're legally binding. Agents who violate them can face discipline or termination.
When a defense attorney requests training records, they're essentially asking whether ICE agents are trained on these regulations and whether Jonathan Ross received that training. If Ross received training on proper procedures for identifying himself and initiating enforcement contact, and then failed to follow those procedures, that's evidence of wrongdoing.
The regulations themselves might also matter. If DHS regulations require clear identification before physical contact, and Ross didn't clearly identify himself, that's a violation of agency policy. A judge might conclude that someone being approached in violation of agency policy has a stronger self-defense claim, or at least that their actions are more understandable.
Administrative law also governs the investigative processes within DHS. When there's a use of force incident, procedures specify how investigations should be conducted. If DHS deviated from those procedures, if the investigation into the Renee Good shooting was improper, that could become relevant. It wouldn't necessarily mean Ross is guilty of murder, but it would mean the investigation itself is questionable.
Defense attorneys are learning to use administrative law as a tool for creating accountability. It's not as dramatic as criminal prosecution, but it can be equally effective in forcing transparency and establishing that misconduct occurred.
Why Judges Matter in These Situations
The Muñoz-Guatemala case will ultimately be decided by federal judges. One judge will rule on the discovery motion. That judge will decide whether prosecutors must turn over training records and investigative files about Jonathan Ross. That ruling will be crucial.
Federal judges have discretion in these matters, but they don't have unlimited discretion. Discovery rules are written into federal law. They require prosecutors to turn over relevant evidence. The question becomes whether records about Jonathan Ross are relevant to Muñoz-Guatemala's case.
A judge sympathetic to transparency will likely rule that they are relevant. Ross's conduct is relevant to whether Muñoz-Guatemala knew he was dealing with law enforcement. It's relevant to whether Muñoz-Guatemala's response was reasonable. It's relevant to sentencing factors. Therefore, the records should be disclosed.
A judge skeptical of broad discovery might rule that the records are not directly relevant to the core legal question of whether Muñoz-Guatemala assaulted a federal officer. That judge might conclude that Ross's general conduct is a distraction from the specific facts of the June incident.
The judge's background and philosophy matter here. Judges who've historically been protective of defendants' rights and skeptical of law enforcement power are more likely to order broad discovery. Judges who defer to prosecution and emphasize efficient case resolution are more likely to limit discovery.
Whoever the judge is, their ruling will create precedent. Other defense attorneys in Minnesota federal court will cite this case. If the judge orders discovery, they're signaling that law enforcement officers' conduct and training records can be relevant to criminal cases. That signal matters. It shapes how future cases are litigated.
The Media and Public Attention
One factor that's been relatively muted in discussions about these cases is media attention. But media attention matters for accountability.
When cases get covered by major news outlets, public awareness increases. Public awareness creates pressure. Elected officials, agency leaders, and judges all become more conscious of how their decisions will be perceived. That consciousness can affect outcomes.
The Renee Good killing has received coverage in some outlets, particularly local Minnesota media and national civil rights communities. But mainstream coverage has been limited compared to some other cases involving federal agents and deaths. The Muñoz-Guatemala case is even less well-known. Most people haven't heard of him or his conviction.
If the discovery motion succeeds, that could change. If training records and investigative files about Jonathan Ross are disclosed, that becomes news. Civil rights organizations will publicize it. Journalists will write about it. The narrative that's been controlled by government agencies becomes subject to public scrutiny.
Media coverage also creates incentive for other investigations. If journalists start looking into Jonathan Ross's history, they might find other incidents, other complaints, other questions. They might track down people who've had enforcement encounters with him. They might document patterns. That kind of journalism is how systemic problems sometimes get exposed.
So far, the case hasn't generated the kind of sustained media attention that would create real pressure. But the discovery motion could change that. Litigation is inherently public. Court filings are public documents. Judges' decisions are public. The machinery of the federal courts, once engaged, produces public information.
Precedent and Future Cases
How this case is decided will matter beyond the specific circumstances of Muñoz-Guatemala and Ross.
If the judge orders broad discovery and prosecutors must turn over Ross's training and personnel records, that creates precedent. Other defense attorneys will cite this decision. Other judges will cite this decision. The rule that emerges from this case will affect how future cases are litigated.
Defense attorneys in immigration enforcement cases will look at this precedent and use it. They'll demand to know about the officers involved in their clients' arrests and charges. They'll argue that officer conduct is relevant to their clients' defense. They'll use the same discovery tools that Muñoz-Guatemala's attorneys are using.
If the judge limits discovery and rules that Ross's general conduct is not relevant, that's also precedent, but it works in the opposite direction. It narrows the ability of defendants to investigate officers. It makes it harder to establish patterns. It protects law enforcement from intense scrutiny of their personnel files.
The bigger question is whether federal courts will increasingly insist on transparency about federal agents' conduct. That's a question that extends far beyond these two cases. It's about whether the federal justice system will move toward greater accountability or remain protective of its agents.
There are arguments on both sides. Agents need some protection. Frivolous discovery requests can be burdensome. Personnel records do contain private information. But without transparency, without public knowledge of how agents actually behave in the field, accountability is impossible.
The legal system is slowly moving toward recognizing that in criminal cases, law enforcement accountability matters. It's not fast progress. It's not universal. But it's happening. The Muñoz-Guatemala case is part of that slow movement.
What Renee Good's Family Deserves to Know
It's easy to get caught up in legal procedure and lose sight of the human element. Renee Good had a family. She had three children. They lost their mother. They want to know what happened. They deserve to know what happened.
The government's refusal to disclose details about the shooting, combined with the decision not to prosecute the officer, sends a message that the official narrative is final. Don't ask questions. Don't expect transparency. Don't expect accountability. Your mother is dead, and you're not entitled to an explanation.
That message is infuriating to people who've lost loved ones to law enforcement use of force. It's infuriating to civil rights advocates. It's infuriating to anyone who believes accountability matters.
The Muñoz-Guatemala case, if it results in disclosure of information about Jonathan Ross, doesn't directly answer what happened to Renee Good. But it might indirectly answer it. It might provide information about how Ross approaches enforcement, about his judgment, about whether he typically resorts to force quickly or as a last resort. It might establish patterns that make his account of what happened to Good more or less credible.
It might also establish that Ross received training he didn't follow, or that DHS had previously expressed concerns about his conduct. These details would matter to understanding whether the shooting was a tragedy or the foreseeable consequence of an agent who'd shown problematic patterns before.
For Renee Good's family and community, that's what's at stake in the Muñoz-Guatemala case. It's not about clearing or condemning anyone. It's about getting information that should be public in the first place.
The Constitutional Questions
Beneath the surface of these cases are constitutional questions that courts don't often address directly but that hover over the proceedings.
Does the public have a right to know what federal agents do? Does the Constitution require transparency in how federal law enforcement operates? These are fascinating questions that don't have clear answers.
The Fifth Amendment is sometimes interpreted to protect privacy in government records. But federal criminal discovery rules often supersede those privacy concerns. When someone is charged with a federal crime and their defense requires evidence from government files, the defendant's constitutional right to due process and a fair trial can override privacy concerns.
There's also an argument based on the First Amendment. Journalists have a right to seek information about government activities. The public has a right to know what government does. Excessive secrecy in government is contrary to democratic principles. These arguments aren't determinative, but they're part of how courts think about transparency cases.
Implicitly, the Muñoz-Guatemala case is asking courts to grapple with these constitutional questions. By demanding discovery, the defense is asserting that fair trials require information about officers' conduct. By opposing broad discovery, the government is asserting that agency privacy and efficiency matter too.
How courts resolve this tension will shape federal law enforcement accountability for years to come.
Possible Outcomes: What Could Happen Next
The Muñoz-Guatemala case could end in several different ways.
Scenario one: The judge orders broad discovery. Training records and investigative files about Jonathan Ross are disclosed. That information enters the public record. Muñoz-Guatemala's defense team and civil rights organizations analyze it. Public knowledge about Ross's conduct increases. The case proceeds to sentencing with this new information in mind. It's the most transparent outcome and the one most favorable to accountability.
Scenario two: The judge orders limited discovery. Some information is disclosed, but the most sensitive personnel records are protected. Partial information enters the public record, creating an incomplete picture but some additional transparency. It's a middle ground that provides some accountability without fully opening agency files.
Scenario three: The judge denies discovery. Prosecutors argue that Ross's general conduct is not relevant to the June incident, and the judge agrees. No new information is disclosed. The case proceeds to sentencing without additional evidence. It's the outcome most favorable to the government.
Scenario four: The parties settle or the case is appealed. Rather than litigating discovery at the trial court level, the case moves to appeal or the parties reach an agreement to resolve the case. Appellate courts could overturn the trial judge's ruling either direction. This scenario introduces unpredictability.
Each of these scenarios has different implications for accountability and transparency. But all of them involve the legal system creating opportunities for information that would otherwise stay hidden. That process, regardless of outcome, is valuable.
Conclusion: The Intersection of Cases and Accountability
When two criminal cases touch, when they involve the same person and raise overlapping questions, the legal system has an opportunity to create transparency it wouldn't otherwise create. The Muñoz-Guatemala case touching the Renee Good shooting is exactly that kind of intersection.
Renee Good was killed in January 2025. The circumstances remain largely sealed. The investigation was closed without criminal charges. From an official transparency perspective, the case appears concluded.
But Jonathan Ross is involved in another case. He's accused of assaulting someone, of dragging that person with a car, of using excessive force in an enforcement encounter. That case is still active. It's still being litigated. The legal process is still grinding forward. And through that process, information is being sought.
The discovery motions being filed don't directly ask about the Renee Good shooting. They ask about training records and investigative files about Jonathan Ross. Indirect as that may be, it's the most promising tool currently available for forcing disclosure of information that the government would prefer to keep sealed.
It's imperfect. A judge could rule against broad discovery. The information disclosed might be limited or redacted. Some details about Ross's conduct might still remain hidden. But it's more transparent than the alternative: silence, sealed files, official stonewalling.
For civil rights advocates, for Renee Good's family, for anyone who believes federal agents should be accountable for their actions, the Muñoz-Guatemala case represents a possibility. It's not guaranteed to succeed. But it's a tool. It's a mechanism. It's how the system sometimes, grudgingly, produces information that was initially withheld.
And that, in a system that privileges opacity, matters.
