Thread by @capinsurrep

Status conference in the case of Riley June Williams in the courtroom of Judge Amy Jackson.
#GreenShirtStairmaster
Convicted on November 21, 2022 of obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder and AFO.
seditiontracker.com/suspects/riley…

There's an interesting exchange in the transcript of Garrett Ziegler, the aide to Peter Navarro who opened the doors to the White House to allow "team crazy" into the White House residence.

Page 14:
Do you know someone named Riley?
I invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment.

govinfo.gov/app/details/GP…

Given that Ziegler has a group that's dedicated almost exclusively to "investigating" Hunter Biden's laptop, this seems like a strange cooincidence, given Riley's alleged involvment in a theft of a laprtop from Nancy Pelosi's office.

Could be a coincidence, there are plenty of people named "Riley" out there, but you never know.

Williams is due to be sentenced on February 22 at 9:30 AM.

The hearing today is a bit delayed due to a slight backup in the schedule in Judge Jackson's courtroom this morning. Audio quality isn't great today.

The hearing, according to Judge Jackson, regards the sufficiency of the evidence. Jackson cites US v Singleton and other rulings that, in re motions for acquittal, the court must favor the government.

She finds the evidence was sufficient.

She's going to go through count by count. For count one, obstructing LEO in a civil disorder, describes the three elements, defendant claims there was no obstruction of commerce.

Cites US v Harrington in re jurisdictional element, finding no need to prove a substantial...

... vs concete effect. The govt presented evidence that a citywide curfew closed Safeway stores at 6 PM as a result of the attack. Cites evidence from warehouse shipments, finds it sufficient, denies motion for acquittal on count one.

On count two, forcibly interfering and intimidating an officer, recites the five elements of that offense. Defense claims hung jury on obstruction charge means the fith element, a requisite other crime necessary to the charge, cannot therefore apply.

Defense bases their claim on Hamner decision by Jackson, but Jackson notes this was an issue at sentencing regarding specific offense characteriztics related to the use of a dangerous weapon against an official victim.

Jackson says this created a disparity between the guidelines based on this, and so asked whether the offense had this predicate. Jackson ruled it did not in Hamner.

"It's a different exercise than what we are engaged in now."

She notes that her ruling on this 10-level difference in guidelines was specifically excluded from application to other January 6th cases more broadly, but was limited to the discrepancy between the guidelines when one offense wasn't a predicate felony.

She found these were unique factors, and ruled that this meant that the lower guidelines ought to be used in this case. But she notes that the lower guidelines didn't adequately address the official victim component of the offense.

"Long-winded way of telling you that was a completely different inquiry."
Now she's going after a citation made by the government.

Says it's not helpful when either side takes a ruling on a different issue out of context.

This relates to whether a conviction will stand, not sentencing. She says the factual overlap will bear on the sentence, but says this isn't a facts-based analysis.

(the facts were established at trial) Going through the elements of what constitutes a obstruction of law enforcement in a civil disorder, finds this applies here, finds other courts in the district have ruled similarly. Denies motion for acquittal on count 3.

Now gets to the two "restricted grounds" counts, defines the elements of these offenses. Defendant claims Pence wasn't temprarily visiting the Capitol on January 6th, he was presiding, so therefore this doesn't apply.

Jackson notes she already ruled on this question.

She looked at the plain meaning of the statute, concluded the phrase "temporarily visiting" applies. Rules the language in the statute is plain and unambiguous, and applies to the Capitol, and is strengthened by the evidence the government offered at trial.

Cites evidence from witnesses from the USCP and USSS, and evidence showing the perimeter, video of the motorcade, etc. Defendant cites US v Fischer, but Jackson notes this was a motion related to the vice president's status as president of the Senate. Notes this wasn't a...

... ruling of the court, merely a question raised by the judge. Not a ruling binding on her, just a question, finds that the jury already concluded that, denies motion to acquit on 5 and 6.

Moving on to 7 and 8, disorderly conduct and parading.

"Not sure there's much I need to say, but I do find the evidence sufficient."

Defense claims the government's statement of facts in inaccurate. Asks what the court expects to happen, claims her original letter wasn't included in the docket.

Jackson has no objection if the defense wants to add her documentation to the docket. Jackson says she will not rely heavily on probation office in the sentencing. Her main source will not be the probation office summary. Defense wants to file her objections.

Defense wants to make it clear that the statement of facts should not include, for example, the computer theft.

Jackson wants to make it clear this is a fact or circumstance of the offense, but not an offense for which Williams has been convicted.

Jackson is not sure there needs to be a lot of back and forth between the two sides on this, both sides have filed, Judge Jackson notes that she was here for the trial. If she feels like there's too much material, she might put off the hearing for a week or two.

Generally in connection with senencing, Jackson explains she will deal with the guidelines first, she will have read all the letters, says it's not necessary to bring these people submitting letters to court, she reads the letters, they don't need to be there.

Jackson asks if the defense wants part of the sentencing under seal, as the defense has filed some motions under seal, but the defense says no. Judge Jackson says issues of mental health and family history can be referenced in such a way that no seal is needed.

Judge Jackson says she will see everyone next week, and exits.

I realize a lot of this may have come off as gobbledygook: Judge Jackson was going over her ruling very quickly.

TLDR versom: defense asks Judge Jackson to throw out all convictions, Judge Jackson says no.

Really wasting the court's time. She didn't say that, but, while she seemed professional and deliberate, there was a certain impatient and dismissive tone in her voice as she issued her ruling.

Subjective, of course, but that's why I hope they keep the call-in lines.

You can get more from actually hearing the voices of the participants than you can find in the documents, as much as I love documents.

In case you want to actually read any of these documents.

courtlistener.com/docket/6063021…