Thread by @ryanjreilly

We should learn at a hearing at 2 p.m. today whether Danny Rodriguez’s full confession will be admissible at trial. huffpost.com/entry/danny-ro…

A tearful Rodriguez called himself “so stupid,” “an asshole,” and a “fucking piece of shit” during the FBI interview, and worried that his “mom’s gonna find out” what he did. huffpost.com/entry/daniel-r…

Danny Rodriguez’s hearing will be underway momentarily. Here’s what Mike Fanone told me that his assailant’s confession tape reveals: huffpost.com/entry/mike-fan…

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is going through her lengthy ruling now.

This is the exchange at issue. Judge Amy Berman Jackson is deciding whether Danny Rodriguez intended to cut off questioning when he was asked about assaulting Mike Fanone.

Most relevant ruling here is Davis v. United States (1994), says Judge Amy Berman Jackson. oyez.org/cases/1993/92-…

Judge Jackson says that Danny Rodriguez’s federal public defenders used partial quotes and paraphrasing under the guise of quoting when citing other court rulings that left a misimpression about what the case law itself actually said.

Judge Jackson: The only question is whether Rodriguez unambiguously and unequivocally asserted his right to cut off questioning about whether he assaulted Fanone.

“So, what does the video show?”

She asked the government to play the video for the purposes of the record.

“Everybody else is going to talk about that…”

Here’s the clip they’re playing in court:

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1465871305983598597

Judge Jackson: I did not hear the word “no” that’s in the transcript.

My ruling is based on the video, and not the transcript.

Judge Jackson: There’s a reason why people say that a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Judge Jackson: If a suspect makes a statement that is ambiguous, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning.

Judge Jackson says she’s probably watched the video more than a 100 times, and never heard a firm “no” from Rodriguez.

Judge Jackson wants to make clear that her ruling doesn’t rely on a shake of the head or the “no.” It’s entirely reasonable to believe that Rodriguez was reluctant, uncomfortable, embarrassed to talk about it. But he didn’t unambiguously assert his right to cease questioning.

Judge Jackson: Again, THE question to be answered is whether Danny Rodriguez unambiguously asserted his right to remain silent. He did not, she says.

Judge Jackson: What he clearly communicated was embarrassment and shame, not a firmly articulated objection to further question.

“He knew his rights,” Jackson said. “He understood when he waived his rights exactly what the subject of the questioning was going to be.”

Judge Jackson: The defendant got comfortable, chatty, when talking about going to D.C.

But Rodriguez's voice lowered when he started talking about what he did at the top of the inauguration platform, she notes.

Judge Jackson notes she cannot consider the fact that Rodriguez talked for two hours after this key exchange. So her decision here is not based on anything that happened after “I’m pretty ashamed,” it stands on its own.

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1473736299223912448

Judge Jackson says the length of the interview doesn’t matter here. She notes that the video reflects that Rodriguez sat in the same padded office chair as FBI special agents, never said he was hungry, and received a bathroom break as soon as it was requested.

Judge Jackson: The agents were not badgering or threatening, they were calm. Saying he had an “opportunity” to tell his story isn’t coercive, she says.

Judge Jackson says that Rodriguez calling himself “so stupid” were not assessments of his mental capacity. It comes across as shame and self-deprecation, Jackson said.

"The government has met its burden to prove that the interview was a voluntary one.” — Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Trump fanatic Danny Rodriguez electroshocked Officer Mike Fanone. His tearful confession will be admissible at trial.

STORY: huffpost.com/entry/danny-ro…

Danny Rodriguez’s lawyers want a trial date set, but there’s are second and third defendants added recently that throw some sand in the gears. #SwedishScarf huffpost.com/entry/swedish-…

Danny Rodriguez’s legal team doesn’t have information about the third co-defendant or the status of that case yet.

Court hearing is now be sealed for an ex parte discussion between Judge Jackson and the prosecution. DOJ will explain, outside of the presence of the defense, what’s going on with co-defendant #SwedishScarf.

Here’s a thread of some of the highlights of Danny Rodriguez’s confession tape. Everything except for a very brief clip that takes place before he’s Mirandized is admissible at trial.

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1465858271668019203

“Only nine seconds at the most elapsed between the end of Agent Elias saying ‘You want to talk about that’ and the defendant saying he is ashamed.” lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-si…