• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jan. 6 trials slowed by mounting evidence in US Capitol riot

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Jan. 6 trials slowed by mounting evidence in US Capitol riot (apnews.com)

In the nearly nine months since Jan. 6, federal agents have tracked down and arrested more than 600 people across the United States believed to have joined in the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Getting those cases swiftly to trial is turning out to be an even more difficult task.

Investigators have collected a mountain of evidence in the attack and are working to organize it and share it with defense attorneys. And that mountain keeps growing with new arrests still happening practically every week.

Washington’s federal court, meanwhile, is clogged with Jan. 6 cases, which more than double the total number of new criminal cases filed there all of last year. Further complicating things are limitations the court has put on trials because of the coronavirus pandemic.

They have mountains of evidence which keeps piling up, delaying the trials. The coronavirus pandemic is also slowing things down. The defense attorneys are crying foul and aren't accepting any excuses for delay.

The court delays are dragging out a process already called into question by some right-wing lawmakers, who argue it’s a waste of time and money to prosecute people accused of low-level crimes. As the court cases continue to stall, so do answers to what happened that day and the possibility for consequences from the most violent assault at the Capitol in a generation. Meanwhile, Democrats in the House are subpoenaing former President Donald Trump’s aides and have requested a trove of documents as a select committee also probes the insurrection.

While it’s not unusual for federal cases to take a year or more to work through the system, some defense lawyers and judges are raising concerns that defendants with a right to a speedy trial may end up waiting a long time before getting their day in court.

“The reason for the delay has not changed or become even remotely concrete. It remains as amorphous today as it was months ago,” an attorney wrote in court documents opposing prosecutors’ request to cancel the scheduled November trial for Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, an ex-Army reservist described by co-workers as a known Nazi sympathizer.

So far, only about 80 cases have been resolved by guilty pleas — largely by those who were charged only with misdemeanor offenses. Scores of others face serious felony charges including conspiracy, assaulting officers and obstructing of an official proceeding that call for lengthy sentences behind bars.

The Justice Department has called it the largest investigation in American history, with probes open in 55 out of 56 FBI field offices. Evidence collected in the attack includes thousands of hours of video footage, hundreds of thousands of tips from the public and more than 1 million Parler posts, replies and data. The Justice Department is building massive databases to share all evidence stemming from the attack with defense attorneys.

In the most high-profile case brought so far, involving more than a dozen members and associates of the far-right extremist group the Oath Keepers, prosecutors recently told a judge that a January trial date for the first set of defendants is looking increasingly unrealistic given how much evidence they still need to get into defense attorneys’ hands.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said if they have to wait until prosecutors turn over “every single scrap of evidence” they’ve collected in the Jan. 6 investigation — rather than just that which relates to a specific defendant — there won’t be trials in any of these cases before 2023. And three of the Oath Keepers defendants, accused of conspiring to block the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election victory over Trump, are behind bars.

“I have to keep their interests in a speedy trial in mind here,” Mehta said. “I am concerned about a lengthy pretrial detention period,” he added. He didn’t immediately rule but signaled that the first Oath Keepers trial would likely be pushed to April, with the second scheduled for July.

At least one of those roughly 70 defendants who are locked up pretrial has already pointed to the delays in an effort to get out of jail. Kelly Meggs, described by authorities as the leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, said in an unsuccessful motion for release that with a January trial looking unlikely, he’s effectively being held in “indefinite pre-trial detention which, under the circumstances, is tantamount to a human rights violation.”

Prosecutors say they are working as quickly as possible under unprecedented challenges to share all evidence that could potentially help the defense and keep the cases moving forward. But new evidence is still being unearthed with each new arrest or as analysis is completed on the thousands of hours of video taken during that chaotic day.

In the case of Robert Reeder, armchair detectives who call themselves Sedition Hunters unearthed new evidence just before he was supposed to be sentenced last month with a recommendation of probation. The video appears to shows Reeder scuffling with a police officer, running counter to his assertion that he had not been part of any violence that day. Reeder’s attorney called the clip problematic. A new sentencing is set for Oct. 8.

The coronavirus is only making matters worse.

Cases were already backed up because of the pandemic, and the court has said no more than three trials can be held at once at least until the end of October to allow for social distancing. A judge in one case recently warned attorneys there’s no guarantee they will be going to trial as planned in February if COVID-19 numbers tick up.

The pandemic has also made it harder for defendants held behind bars to safely work with their lawyers — a problem that’s plagued the entire criminal justice system.

“The defense attorneys just aren’t really able to consistently meet with their clients, aren’t able to consistently share data or prepare defense with them in an engaged, consistent way,” said Jon Lewis, a research fellow who’s been following the Jan. 6 cases for the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. “It’s a very real issue.”

Some defendants, like Hale-Cusanelli, say they don’t want to wait any longer for their chance to defend themselves in court. Hale-Cusanelli is scheduled for trial on Nov. 9, but prosecutors say there’s no way that’s possible. A judge has set a hearing for next week to decide whether to keep that date in place.

A lawyer for the former Army reservist accused prosecutors of seeking more time only to “further cement their case” against his client, “despite having allegedly sufficient evidence to indict” him. Prosecutors called that assertion “wholly without foundation.”

“The government has presented eminently reasonable explanations for the delay: its strenuous efforts to meet the challenges imposed by the enormous amount of relevant evidence that it must review, process, categorize, and organize into a format that will make it accessible and useful to the defense,” they wrote in court documents.

Prosecutors say Hale-Cusanelli, who worked as a security contractor at a Navy base, used his military training to avoid the effects of pepper spray and tactical hand signals to urge fellow rioters forward on Jan. 6. He later described the day as exhilarating to a tipster, praising the “the adrenaline, the rush, the purpose” he felt, according to court documents.

Hale-Cusanelli’s attorney has noted that he is not accused of hurting anyone that day. The defense has called him an “opinionated individual” who “fully exercised his right to speak freely before being imprisoned.”

The article suggests that some of the trials could be pushed back to 2023. There's also a suggestion of indefinite pre-trial detention.

Maybe they just need to hire more people to review, process, and organize the evidence, if that's their main issue. The article mentioned that more than 600 have been arrested thus far, but only 80 have plead guilty. The article also mentioned a group of armchair detectives called Sedition Hunters, so maybe they can put out a call for volunteers to help speed this process up.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I can understand why the defense wants a rapid trial. They appear to know that their clients are guilty and time will only make matters worse for them. In many cases the prosecutors take their own sweet time in filing charges because once one does the clock starts running. I wonder if they can get away with arguing for the necessity of their relatively rapid arrests in this case. Does contingency outweigh the rights to a speedy trial? I am not a lawyer and have no idea how this argument would fly.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Defendants can motion for a speedy trial and if the prosecution isn't ready the judge could dismiss. I kinda worry about overkill prosecutions. The OJ trial had massive evidence and the jurors got bored. They know what they are doing so we just need to be patient. Of course conservatives are going to gripe against government and the law, unless it's against non-white people.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
They have mountains of evidence which keeps piling up, delaying the trials. The coronavirus pandemic is also slowing things down. The defense attorneys are crying foul and aren't accepting any excuses for delay.

Don't agree.

Foul is a good defense.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It is a good strategy when one's clients are guilty.
And it is a great defense when you are in there unjustly and still no formal charges against you. I should know... one of them is a pastor from our area that had to go to the bathroom and a policeman waved him in.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I can understand why the defense wants a rapid trial. They appear to know that their clients are guilty and time will only make matters worse for them. In many cases the prosecutors take their own sweet time in filing charges because once one does the clock starts running. I wonder if they can get away with arguing for the necessity of their relatively rapid arrests in this case. Does contingency outweigh the rights to a speedy trial? I am not a lawyer and have no idea how this argument would fly.
We have a constitutional right to a speedy trial (6th Amendment).
Without this right, government could hold us in jail without limit,
with this threat hanging over our heads as long as they please.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We have a constitutional right to a speedy trial (6th Amendment).
Without this right, government could hold us in jail without limit,
with this threat hanging over our heads as long as they please.
I know. There are exceptions granted at times. "Speedy" is not a well defined term. I am not in favor of holding anyone indefinitely. Once a reasonable complaint is made a judge should look at the investigation and set what he or she has determined to be a date that goes along with that amendment.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I know. There are exceptions granted at times. "Speedy" is not a well defined term. I am not in favor of holding anyone indefinitely. Once a reasonable complaint is made a judge should look at the investigation and set what he or she has determined to be a date that goes along with that amendment.
If they lack evidence for a trial, then don't file
charges or arrest anyone until they do.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And it is a great defense when you are in there unjustly and still no formal charges against you. I should know... one of them is a pastor from our area that had to go to the bathroom and a policeman waved him in.
Sorry, but that argument does not appear to fly in this case. It is not a matter of what they are being charged with. I don't think anyone is going to get off scot free from this mess. It is how serious the charges are for the different violations of the individuals.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If they lack evidence for a trial, then don't file
charges or arrest anyone until they do.
That might be an option now. But for many of them there still was a serious threat when they were arrested. Could they even do so? I know that one cannot go backwards after a certain amount of depth into a prosecution.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That might be an option now. But for many of them there still was a serious threat when they were arrested. Could they even do so? I know that one cannot go backwards after a certain amount of depth into a prosecution.
The threat didn't look serious enuf to justify
holding'm in jail awaiting trial in 2023.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
At least one of those roughly 70 defendants who are locked up pretrial has already pointed to the delays in an effort to get out of jail. Kelly Meggs, described by authorities as the leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers, said in an unsuccessful motion for release that with a January trial looking unlikely, he’s effectively being held in “indefinite pre-trial detention which, under the circumstances, is tantamount to a human rights violation.”
Aww! Gee, that's too bad.

The article suggests that some of the trials could be pushed back to 2023. There's also a suggestion of indefinite pre-trial detention.

Aww! Gee, that's too bad.

Maybe they just need to hire more people to review, process, and organize the evidence, if that's their main issue. The article mentioned that more than 600 have been arrested thus far, but only 80 have plead guilty. The article also mentioned a group of armchair detectives called Sedition Hunters, so maybe they can put out a call for volunteers to help speed this process up.

Hiring more people just costs taxpayers more money. I'd be against that.

Using volunteers might be useful. I might volunteer. I wonder if anyone would notice if I slowed things down even more?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The coronavirus pandemic is also slowing things down.
Cases were already backed up because of the pandemic, and the court has said no more than three trials can be held at once at least until the end of October to allow for social distancing. A judge in one case recently warned attorneys there’s no guarantee they will be going to trial as planned in February if COVID-19 numbers tick up.​

The pandemic has also made it harder for defendants held behind bars to safely work with their lawyers — a problem that’s plagued the entire criminal justice system.

This is really funny considering that probably most of the Jan 6th insurrectionists are also against the vaccines. Part of the slowdown is the ongoing epidemic which their actions perpetuate. Karma?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Cases were already backed up because of the pandemic, and the court has said no more than three trials can be held at once at least until the end of October to allow for social distancing. A judge in one case recently warned attorneys there’s no guarantee they will be going to trial as planned in February if COVID-19 numbers tick up.
The pandemic has also made it harder for defendants held behind bars to safely work with their lawyers — a problem that’s plagued the entire criminal justice system.

This is really funny considering that probably most of the Jan 6th insurrectionists are also against the vaccines. Part of the slowdown is the ongoing epidemic which their actions perpetuate. Karma?
If a judge did have to set a trial date I would hope that being part of the problem in the case of Covid19 would be taken into consideration in setting the date.

I look at Denmark and Norway as examples of how it can go if one does not deny reality. They are both open with very few restrictions.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I should know... one of them is a pastor from our area that had to go to the bathroom and a policeman waved him in.
SERIOUSLY? You believe that?

In the midst of a riot a man walks up to a cop and says: Officer, I need to pee. Will you let me enter the Capitol so that I can relieve myself?

SERIOUSLY? You believe that?


Why didn't he just use one of these?

porta_potty.jpg
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SERIOUSLY? You believe that?

In the midst of a riot a man walks up to a cop and says: Officer, I need to pee. Will you let me enter the Capitol so that I can relieve myself?

SERIOUSLY? You believe that?


Why didn't he just use one of these?

porta_potty.jpg
That must have been one wicked whizz!


And I find it very hard to relieve myself when someone is walking on my ceiling.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
And it is a great defense when you are in there unjustly and still no formal charges against you. I should know... one of them is a pastor from our area that had to go to the bathroom and a policeman waved him in.
I'll believe that they believed that guy.
It's a fairly common occurence for police to be blind on the right eye and lame on their right wing, if you catch my drift.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
SERIOUSLY? You believe that?

In the midst of a riot a man walks up to a cop and says: Officer, I need to pee. Will you let me enter the Capitol so that I can relieve myself?

SERIOUSLY? You believe that?


Why didn't he just use one of these?

porta_potty.jpg
Since I know the pastor.... yes.
 
Top