Prosecutor Accused Of Misconduct, Judges Step Aside, Evidence Suppressed And Yet The Government Still Convicted Single Mom Shana Gaviola
One of the most enduring principles of American justice is the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers. It is a safeguard embedded in the Constitution, born from a deep distrust of concentrated government power. The Founders believed ordinary citizens—not government officials—should ultimately decide guilt or innocence.
Yet in courtrooms across the country today, that principle is increasingly hollowed out. Not because juries are failing, but because they are often prevented from hearing the full truth.
The federal prosecution of Shana Gaviola illustrates this troubling reality. The Gateway Pundit has written numerous articles about Shana’s case. A case where Shana has been fighting a liberal California government that was trying to transition her son without her permission.
Before Shana’s early December 2025 trial, her attorney, George Pallas, fought for her case to be dismissed based on obvious misconduct perpetrated by the prosecution and others. His motion was denied, and her case was shuffled around California courthouses.
When we reached out to Shana’s attorney, George Pallas, he responded, “This prosecution is an abomination.”
“Shana Gaviola’s child was stolen from her through systematic psychological manipulation, and when she fought to save him, the federal government decided to destroy her life. This isn’t law enforcement, it’s state-sanctioned child abuse.”
He continued, “What we’re seeing here is the criminalization of motherhood. Ms. Gaviola’s only ‘crime’ was refusing to stand by while her child was groomed and manipulated by those who wanted to replace her as his parent.”
Without mincing words, he then went on to say, “Make no mistake, Ms. Gaviola’s son was groomed and brainwashed to hate his own mother. Those responsible should be in the defendant’s chair, not her. Instead, the government has chosen to prosecute the victim while protecting the perpetrators of parental alienation.”
After a five-day jury trial, a federal jury found Shana guilty of violating a protective order by causing her then-16-year-old son to be transported across state lines, from California to Missouri, against his will, in violation of federal law. The conviction was based on 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(2), including aiding and abetting liability. She now faces sentencing on April 27, 2026, with potential penalties of up to five years in prison and substantial fines, according to the Department of Justice. These facts are not in dispute.
Just as important is what is not being claimed. There is no credible public reporting that the jury instructions themselves were legally defective. Available court records show that jurors were given standard federal instructions explaining the elements of the offense, including what constitutes a protection order, the requirement of interstate travel by force or coercion, and the definition of aiding and abetting. The verdict was not the product of rogue jurors or legally improper guidance. The problem lies elsewhere.
Like many defendants, Shana’s defense was significantly constrained by pretrial evidentiary rulings. Judges, acting as gatekeepers, determine what evidence jurors may consider and what must be excluded, often under the rationale that certain information is “highly prejudicial.” In this case, key evidence central to Shana’s defense was ruled inadmissible and never presented to the jury.
The jury did not reject that evidence.
They never saw it.
Not because it was fabricated.
Not because it was unreliable.
But because the court decided it might influence how jurors perceived the case.
That is precisely the point of evidence.
In theory, juries are the factfinders. In practice, judges exercise enormous power to curate the narrative that jurors are allowed to hear. By the time opening statements begin, the universe of “facts” has often already been narrowed to a version of events filtered through procedural rules and judicial discretion.
When a defendant faces years in federal prison based on a record stripped of critical context, the jury’s constitutional role is diminished. Jurors may sincerely believe they are weighing all relevant facts, unaware that entire categories of explanation, motive, or background have been removed from their consideration. The verdict may carry the jury’s name, but the outcome is frequently shaped long before deliberations ever begin.
This is not an isolated issue. Across the country, appellate courts routinely uphold convictions even while acknowledging that juries never heard significant defense evidence. The justification is almost always procedural: the trial judge followed the rules of evidence. But rules are not justice. And procedure is not truth.
Conservatives have long warned about unchecked authority, unelected bureaucrats, unaccountable regulators, and activist courts. Yet trial judges wield a form of power that is often overlooked and rarely scrutinized: the authority to decide which truths citizens are permitted to hear before deciding whether a fellow American loses her liberty.
TO HELP SHANA FIGHT HER LEGAL BATTLE CLICK HERE
The Founders did not envision the jury as a ceremonial rubber stamp. It was designed as a check on government power, including the judiciary itself. When judges decide which facts the people may consider that safeguard erodes.
When we asked Pallas about the government overreach of this case, he responded, “The federal government has weaponized the criminal justice system to punish a mother for the crime of loving her child. If the government can imprison Shana Gaviola for trying to save her son from parental alienation, then no parent in America is safe.”
He concluded with, “This case presents a simple question. Do parents have the right to protect their children, or can the government criminalize a mother’s love when it becomes inconvenient to others?”
If Shana is ultimately sent to prison, it will not be because a jury heard all the evidence and unanimously rejected her defense. It will be because the system decided that twelve citizens could not be trusted to evaluate certain evidence for themselves.
Regardless of where one stands on the underlying facts, Americans should be deeply uneasy with a justice system in which freedom can be taken away based not only on what a jury heard—but on what it was forbidden to hear. Today it is Shana. Tomorrow, it could be anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of a judicial ruling that keeps critical facts from the people sworn to decide their fate.
To help Shana continue to get the best legal representation and fight this system that is trying to take her freedom and take her from her children, please consider donating to her Give Send Go campaign. www.GiveSendGo.com/Shana
Recognizing the broader due-process concerns raised by this case, the American Rights Alliance, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to civil liberties and constitutional accountability, is raising funds to support Shana’s legal defense and post-trial efforts.
The post Prosecutor Accused Of Misconduct, Judges Step Aside, Evidence Suppressed And Yet The Government Still Convicted Single Mom Shana Gaviola appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.