KENOSHA, Wis. — Kenosha County Eye is releasing surveillance video of the courtroom entrance that prompted liberal Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Jason Rossell (D) to declare a mistrial in the child sexual assault prosecution of Micah Jonathan Dillon, 19, of Salem, Wisconsin. Dillon, who was ordered held on $50,000 cash bail, faces four felony charges, including repeated sexual assault of a child and incest, stemming from allegations that he repeatedly sexually assaulted his 9-year-old nephew. The video captures the incident involving members of Guardians of the Children, a nonprofit motorcycle organization dedicated to supporting abused children, whose presence Rossell concluded could have improperly influenced jurors.
Micah Jonathan Dillon, 19, of Salem (Photo Kenosha Sheriff’s Office)
Guardians of the Children was founded in San Antonio, Texas, in 2006. For 20 years, its members have volunteered their time to help children and families affected by abuse, including accompanying young victims to court proceedings where they may be required to testify about traumatic experiences. The organization’s mission includes providing strength, stability, protection, and emotional support to children facing some of the most difficult moments of their lives.
The newly released footage concerns the events of Tuesday, November 3, 2026, shortly after 1:30 p.m., when jurors were returning from their lunch break in Branch 2 of the Kenosha County Courthouse. Twelve of the 13 jurors, including an alternate, were already seated, while the courtroom waited for the remaining juror to return from the restroom.
At that time, a victim-witness advocate from the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office entered the courtroom with the alleged child victim. Several members of Guardians of the Children entered at approximately the same time, prompting defense counsel to raise concerns about the appearance of the group accompanying the child in front of the jury.
Defense counsel requested a sidebar conference with Rossell and subsequently argued that the group’s entrance could have influenced jurors by creating the impression that the organization was endorsing the child’s allegations. The attorney did not object to Guardians of the Children members quietly attending the public trial. Rather, the objection concerned their entrance alongside the child before he was formally called to testify.
The following morning, Wednesday, November 4, Rossell granted the defense’s motion for a mistrial, abruptly ending the proceedings and forcing the case to be scheduled for another jury trial.
During his lengthy explanation, Rossell acknowledged that Guardians of the Children members had been respectful and had not disrupted the proceedings. He also recalled the organization attending several previous trials in his courtroom without causing similar problems.
Nevertheless, Rossell expressed concern about the group’s recognizable motorcycle vests and the message their entrance alongside the child might have communicated to jurors. The judge discussed how uniforms can convey authority, strength, and unity, and concluded that the circumstances created a sufficient risk of improper influence to warrant a mistrial.
Rossell specifically acknowledged that he did not find an improper purpose on the part of Guardians of the Children. His ruling was based on how he believed the entrance could have been perceived by jurors, rather than a finding that the organization deliberately attempted to intimidate anyone.
Assistant District Attorney Vincent Kurta opposed the mistrial and argued that the entrance appeared to have resulted from a misunderstanding of courtroom procedure. Kurta emphasized that the group’s members had behaved appropriately throughout the trial and were present because the child’s family wanted their support.
The prosecutor also requested that the court individually question jurors to determine whether they had actually felt intimidated or improperly influenced. Rossell declined that request, concluding that questioning the jurors would not change his decision.
Kenosha County Eye subsequently spoke with one of the jurors, who strongly disputed the suggestion that Guardians of the Children had intimidated the panel. The juror told KCE that, to the juror’s knowledge, none of the other jurors had been intimidated either.
The surveillance footage now gives the public an opportunity to examine the incident that resulted in a mistrial and consider whether the courtroom entrance justified terminating a serious felony prosecution.
Kenosha County Eye was present in the courtroom when the incident occurred and observed nothing suggesting that the District Attorney’s Office deliberately orchestrated an attempt to influence the jury. A courthouse insider familiar with the victim-witness advocate also defended her professionalism, saying she takes her responsibilities seriously and would not knowingly engage in improper conduct.
The child’s family has expressed outrage over the ruling. Family members told KCE that several relatives traveled approximately five hours, including from Indiana, to attend the trial and support the child. They were devastated to learn that the proceedings would have to begin again.
The family specifically requested the presence of Guardians of the Children. Its members were there to support the child as he prepared to testify about allegations of repeated sexual abuse by his uncle, not to disrupt the judicial process.
The allegations against Dillon include repeated sexual assaults between April and June 2024, when Dillon was 17 years old. Prosecutors allege that Dillon subjected the child to sexual touching and other abusive acts, exposed him to pornography, and attempted to normalize inappropriate sexual behavior. The most serious charge carries a maximum of 40 years of initial confinement.
The prosecution had already presented the child’s recorded forensic interview, and witnesses had made arrangements to participate in the trial. Rossell acknowledged that the child had not yet testified, which he considered an important factor in granting the mistrial.
The judge reasoned that allowing the trial to continue could risk a future appellate reversal, potentially requiring the child to testify again years later. His ruling, however, means that the child and his family must now prepare for another trial rather than having the allegations resolved by the jury already selected.
The controversy also raises questions about the future of child advocacy organizations in Wisconsin courtrooms. In the 2021 Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision State v. Stryker, a defendant unsuccessfully challenged the presence of Guardians of the Children members wearing identifiable motorcycle vests during a child sexual assault trial. The appellate court upheld the denial of a mistrial in that case, although the unpublished decision is not binding precedent and involved different circumstances.
Rossell’s ruling does not prohibit Guardians of the Children from attending future court proceedings. Nevertheless, it raises concerns about whether the organization’s visible efforts to support children could become grounds for additional mistrial motions when jurors observe those efforts.
For two decades, Guardians of the Children members have accompanied vulnerable children through courthouse hallways, into courtrooms, and through the difficult process of confronting alleged abusers. In Kenosha County, one such entrance became the basis for ending a jury trial.
Kenosha County Eye is now making the footage public so readers can examine the incident themselves, rather than relying exclusively on competing courtroom arguments about what occurred.
The case is expected to return for a new jury trial in 2027. Dillon remains presumed innocent unless and until the charges against him are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the child and his family, the consequences of the mistrial are already real. They must wait months longer for another opportunity to have the allegations heard by a jury, while the organization they asked to stand beside them finds itself at the center of a controversy over whether its support was improperly intimidating.
The public can now see the courtroom entrance that led to that decision.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
