Which federal prosecutors resigned over the handling of the Renee Good case and what reasons did they state?

1. Who resigned: a short roster and where the reporting places them

Reporting consistently identifies six prosecutors who left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota; The New York Times named Joseph H. Thompson and listed Harry Jacobs, Melinda Williams and Thomas Calhoun‑Lopez among the senior career prosecutors who resigned, while other outlets corroborated a total of six departures ^{[1] [2]}. Beyond Minnesota, senior supervisors in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in Washington — the unit that normally handles federal law‑enforcement killings — also submitted notices of resignation or gave notice of planned departures around the same period, creating a parallel wave of senior exits at DOJ headquarters ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Primary reasons cited by departing prosecutors: protesting investigative priorities and tactics

Multiple sources say the Minnesota resignations were prompted by DOJ leadership’s push to open a criminal probe of Renee Good’s widow while appearing reluctant to mount a civil‑rights investigation of the ICE agent who shot Good; prosecutors objected both to pursuing the victim’s family and to what they saw as sidelining of an inquiry into the use of force ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Reporting also highlights that state investigators were effectively excluded from evidence-sharing channels—an action described as a breakdown in standard interagency cooperation that concerned resigning prosecutors because it could indefinitely bar local authorities from necessary materials ^{[6] [3]}.

3. What the departing prosecutors said, and what they did not publicly say

Some named prosecutors declined to comment publicly about their reasons, but coverage relying on “people familiar with their decisions” conveyed that at least Joseph Thompson objected to both the directive to investigate the widow and the department’s reluctance to pursue a civil‑rights probe of the shooter ^{[1] [2]}. Other reporting framed the resignations as a principled protest by career attorneys who viewed the Civil Rights Division’s mission as including investigation of lethal federal force, suggesting the exits were intended as an alarm about politicized priorities at DOJ ^{[4] [7]}.

4. DOJ and alternative explanations: denials and administrative context

The Justice Department confirmed the resignations but a DOJ spokesperson denied they were related to the Minneapolis shooting in at least one public statement, and some reporting noted that several prosecutors accepted early retirement offers or had other reasons for leaving, indicating the exits might reflect a mix of causes beyond a single dispute ^{[5] [3]}. Coverage also places the resignations amid a broader pattern of turnover and tensions in DOJ under the Trump administration, meaning these departures occurred against a backdrop of institutional upheaval ^{[3] [7]}.

5. Consequences and unresolved points in the reporting

Resignations removed experienced prosecutors from major fraud and civil‑rights caseloads and fueled local officials’ concerns that federal‑state coordination had been damaged, potentially complicating any future state prosecution or joint inquiry; Minnesota officials warned that evidence-sharing channels had “broken down” and might keep materials from state prosecutors indefinitely ^{[6] [1]}. Reporting does not provide public, on‑the‑record resignation letters laying out every individualized reason for each departure; several names are reported but detailed, first‑person explanations from all six prosecutors are not available in the cited coverage ^{[2] [1]}.