Corrections: The original version of this article had accidentally misspelled Ms. Araoju's name, and has been corrected
Yesterday was opening motions and the beginning of jury selection for the State v Arajou case, where the state has alleged that leftist Isabel Araoju harassed and maced anti-Muslim activist Sorbeah Almosa (her anti-Muslim views are prevalent in her social media profile) at a pro-Palestinian protest in April of 2024 where Ms. Almosa was burning a Quran as a counter-protest.
The day’s proceedings began with a series of pre-lunch motions in limine, covering standard matters like excluding and sequestering witnesses and limiting officers to silent review of their own reports. While these were mostly routine, the morning session also included the Lawson evidentiary hearing, which defense counsel tied closely to their arguments about video completeness and hearsay identification.
Editor’s note: Full coverage of the Lawson hearing is temporarily incomplete due to courtroom accessibility issues that prevented live observation. We are currently working to obtain the official FTR recording and transcript from the court. Once reviewed, we will provide a comprehensive update on the morning motions and witness testimony in a follow-up.
After the lunch break, the courtroom turned to the most contentious evidentiary fights of the day: the partial video, hearsay identification, the use of Araujo’s alleged nickname “Aspen,” and whether the jury would see the self-defense gear seized during her arrest.
The defense pressed hardest on the missing full video of the alleged incident, supposedly Almosa’s possession in Vancouver. Without the unedited footage, they argued, the defense had no way to fully review for exculpatory details or impeach Almosa’s account, raising concerns under both Brady and the best evidence rule. As previously reported, Almosa told police that the video was edited to serve her purposes, suggesting a potential for bias against the perpetrator. Prosecutors admitted they never obtained the original file, citing email size limitations and Almosa’s lack of transportation, but the judge allowed the partial clip to be used, describing it as “the best evidence the state currently has.” She signaled, however, that the issue could be revisited in a renewed dismissal motion after the state’s case-in-chief if the defense could show concrete prejudice.
The court then addressed hearsay and derivative testimony. Defense counsel objected to testimony that Almosa and others only knew the person in bloc as “Aspen” because Andy Ngo and unnamed third parties told them so—statements the defense framed as classic hearsay and a 6th Amendment/Confrontation Clause problem. The judge suggested a limiting instruction might allow some statements for context without letting the jury treat them as proof of identity. That issue carried into Motion 7, which challenged police reliance on the nickname “Aspen.” The defense argued that officers had inferred the connection from videos and Almosa’s statements, while Araujo herself had never self-identified as Aspen on the record. The judge agreed the link could not rest on inference alone and signaled she would instruct the jury accordingly.
Finally, the court weighed whether the jury would see Araujo’s self-defense gear—pepper spray, a baton, a knife, and body armor—seized during her arrest months later. Defense counsel stressed the prejudicial optics of showing a knife and baton when no such items were alleged in the incident, warning it could mislead the jury in a mistaken identity case. The judge struck a middle ground: the pepper spray canisters may be introduced, as they relate to the charge of unlawful use of a “deleterious agent,” but the knife and baton would require strict limiting instructions and full foundation before any exhibit could reach the jury.
The afternoon session underscored a consistent theme: the state’s case leans heavily on partial evidence and inference, while the court repeatedly weighed the risk that prejudice could outweigh probative value. For the jury, the trial will likely hinge less on physical evidence than on credibility, context, and the limits of what they are allowed to consider. As nothing has been brought by the state seeking to limit questions asked of Almosa, it’s entirely possible that previous actions, such as attempted macing of leftist protesters in 2020 and the current felony domestic violence charges she faces in Clark County, Washington, could come into play to question her reliability as a witness and her potential as an agitator.
Outside the courtroom, the case continues to play out in the court of public opinion. Within hours of the hearing, Andy Ngo tweeted about Araujo’s case, framing it with his usual narrative targeting local anti-fascist activists. The post quickly drew dozens of hostile and inflammatory replies, including:
- Direct or implied threats toward Araujo
- Hate speech and dehumanizing language, often using anti-trans slurs
- Excessive calls for punishment, with some commenters demanding long jail terms despite the case involving a misdemeanor charge and first-time offense
- Indirect incitement, such as vague calls for violence against “people like her” or doxxing gestures referencing Kiwi Farms
In total, a review of the thread found a significant portion of replies (roughly 30–40%) included some form of threat, hate, or incitement, creating an environment that could heighten safety concerns for Araujo as the trial proceeds.
This online activity reflects a predictable feedback loop: Ngo’s posts frequently attract audiences willing to harass, doxx, or fantasize about harm toward those he targets. While none of these comments appear to come from official parties to the case, the volume and tone of the replies raise real-world safety concerns—especially for a defendant already facing heightened visibility due to her trans identity and prior protest activity.
Stay tuned to here and our BlueSky for more developments as the case unfolds.