DC appellate court dragging its feet on issuing a decision in Couy Griffin's appeal of his 1752 misdemeanor conviction. Appellate panel heard arguments on Dec 4--this is the most commonly charged misdemeanor in J6 cases and relates to trespassing on "restricted" grounds at the Capitol.
DOJ insists the area was restricted due to the presence of Mike Pence, who was a Secret Service protectee at the time. Griffin's argument--one the panel seemed very inclined to embrace--is that the charge requires knowledge that a Secret Service protectee was inside the building. (Pence left the building around 2:30pm and allegedly went to a parking garage still technically on Capitol grounds, DOJ claims.)
It is unclear why court is delaying what appeared during oral arguments to be agreement that proving knowledge is an essential element in determining guilt.
Meanwhile, some DC district court judges continue to insist foreknowledge is not necessary to ascertain guilt. Matthew Graves recently filed an update with the appellate court hoping the panel will change course.
DOJ insists the area was restricted due to the presence of Mike Pence, who was a Secret Service protectee at the time. Griffin's argument--one the panel seemed very inclined to embrace--is that the charge requires knowledge that a Secret Service protectee was inside the building. (Pence left the building around 2:30pm and allegedly went to a parking garage still technically on Capitol grounds, DOJ claims.)
It is unclear why court is delaying what appeared during oral arguments to be agreement that proving knowledge is an essential element in determining guilt.
Meanwhile, some DC district court judges continue to insist foreknowledge is not necessary to ascertain guilt. Matthew Graves recently filed an update with the appellate court hoping the panel will change course.
At the very least, the panel seemed inclined to send Griffin's conviction back to Judge McFadden to ascertain Couy's knowledge of Pence's presence. (He was convicted of 1752 after a bench trial.)
The judges were very skeptical about DOJs claims that the crowd should have known the entire area was "restricted" even though no signage to that effect remained in place after about 1pm.
Appellate court could be delaying issuing an opinion that again smacks down DOJ and several judges following 2 other opinions recently reversing sentencing-related excesses.
The judges were very skeptical about DOJs claims that the crowd should have known the entire area was "restricted" even though no signage to that effect remained in place after about 1pm.
Appellate court could be delaying issuing an opinion that again smacks down DOJ and several judges following 2 other opinions recently reversing sentencing-related excesses.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
