Marimar Martinez, a Chicago woman who survived being shot five times by a U.S. Border Patrol agent, filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against the U.S. government, alleging a range of abuses including false arrest, malicious prosecution, and negligence. Her legal team says fresh forensic analysis of the shooting scene will demonstrate that the agent fired at her as she was driving away, contradicting official accounts.
The suit stems from an incident in which Martinez was wounded by Border Patrol agent Charles Exum. Martinez was initially charged in the aftermath, but those charges were later dropped. Her attorneys now argue that the government's version of events was fabricated and that physical evidence supports her side.
In an unusual move, Martinez's lawyers commissioned an independent crime scene reconstruction before filing the lawsuit. Attorney Michael Gallagher, speaking at a Chicago press conference, said the analysis was necessary to counter widespread public trust in official narratives. "We know in this day and age, with 40 [to] 50 percent of America believing everything that comes out of the mouth of a DOJ [Department of Justice] or the current administration's representative, that we need to show objective proof from Jump Street," Gallagher said. "We need to show them that their lies are done today, that they can't twist the truth or keep spinning it because that ends."
Shortly after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security labeled Martinez a domestic terrorist and alleged she had attempted to ram Exum with her car. But the new analysis, according to the legal team, shows bullets entered through the passenger side of the front windshield and later through the side of the vehicle—details that undercut Exum's claim that he fired as the car was heading toward him.
Attorney Chris Parente emphasized the evidentiary weight of the findings. "It's actual, concrete physical evidence and science by an independent expert that shows the agent lied about where he was, and Marimar has been telling the truth," Parente said.
The lawsuit, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, does not specify a monetary amount. Gallagher said the primary goal is a trial verdict. "We don't expect them to ever offer any type of money, which is fine by us. We prefer the verdict," he said.
Martinez said she had been ready to move on after the charges were dropped, but was galvanized by two more fatal encounters with federal agents in Minneapolis. She referenced the death of Renee, a victim in that city, and expressed determination to keep fighting. "Look at what happened to Renee and all these victims. So I won't stop. I have a voice, and I do matter, and I don't want it to keep happening. I don't. I just don't. So I want to spread awareness because what's happening is not normal. We shouldn't stay here and normalize what's happening," she said.
The case comes amid broader scrutiny of federal law enforcement tactics and the use of force. Recent policy debates have touched on immigration enforcement, but this lawsuit adds a legal challenge to the actions of agents in the field. The outcome could have implications for how such incidents are investigated and prosecuted.
Legal experts note that the Federal Tort Claims Act allows suits against the government for the misconduct of its employees, but plaintiffs must clear procedural hurdles. The decision to bring an independent analyst in early suggests a strategy to build a compelling case from the outset.
As the legal process unfolds, Martinez's case is likely to draw attention from civil liberties groups and those who have criticized the administration's immigration policies. Political tensions around immigration remain high, and this lawsuit adds a personal dimension to the broader debate.
The government has not yet responded to the lawsuit. A trial date has not been set.
