15.2 C
New York
Sunday, September 25, 2022

Flurry of filings in Barnett’s Capitol insurrection case – Brospar Daily News

WASHINGTON (KNWA/KFTA) — The defense team of a Gravette man charged with conduct during the U.S. Capitol riots filed multiple pretrial motions just before a federal court deadline.

Richard Barnett, 61, faces multiple charges and his trial will begin on December 12. On September 22, Barnett’s defense filed two motions and two responses to motions to indict.

The first motion asks the court to dismiss the first charge of “unstated crimes” against Barnett. One of the indictments states that Barnett “tried and did corruptly obstruct, influence, and obstruct the official process, the process before Congress, to enter and remain in the U.S. Capitol without authorization and to engage in disorderly and disruptive conduct. “

The defense filing claims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the statute “totally out of context,” stating that “Section 1512(c) is designed to prevent a party from altering, tampering, destroying, or otherwise failing to present evidence. “

It added that with regard to the January 6 case, the “history and purpose” behind the regulations had been “completely ignored”.

“The government is using [the statute] As a means of prosecuting felonies, misdemeanors may at best apply,” it added. The document also said Barnett was never near the Senate or in the Capitol when debates related to election counts ceased and Congress was evacuated. Inside.

The filing called the statute’s “arbitrary application unconstitutional” and asked for the charges to be dismissed.

The defense’s second motion seeks to bar the prosecution’s use of certain “inflammatory” terms and language, including the following:

  • Terrorism (and terrorists)
  • Uprising (and insurgents)
  • mob
  • thug
  • Crime of treason
  • traitor
  • sedition
  • conspiracy
  • raid on the capitol
  • attack congress
  • Attack on Democracy / Threat to Democracy
  • white supremacists/white supremacists
  • police killed
  • stun gun
  • proud boy
  • oath

The motion also calls for a ban on references to “places he has not been to or places in the Capitol.”

The value of these terms, if any, greatly outweighs their propensity to elicit an emotional response from the jury, and the completely predictable bias that is sure to occur when they are admitted.

Richard Barnett Defends Motion at Picket Line Sept. 22

“The incident at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, resulted in no police deaths and Mr. Barnett was not involved in any violence,” the document said. The motion added that any reference to former President Trump ” Content that “stop the theft” lawsuits and court challenges should also be banned.

“The legal significance of any lawsuit brought by parties unrelated to Mr. Barnett to challenge the election should be excluded from Mr. Barnett’s conduct on January 6, 2021,” it noted. The motion goes on to demand that any photos on Barnett’s phone that are not relevant to the case should also be excluded, noting that those photos may need to be evaluated “picture by picture.”

The defense added that any reference to a gun that Barnett legally purchased is biased and should be excluded, as well as any reference to “previous protests, events and/or incidents related to firearms or the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Activism” has no proven value and is irrelevant. “

“The government should not be allowed to convict by knowingly inciting jury bias,” the document said.

The defense’s third application is to contest the government’s request to exclude the defense from introducing three categories of evidence: evidence or arguments relevant to any potential penalty, evidence or arguments designed to invalidate a jury, and failure to reciprocate. Witnesses and affirmative defenders not identified under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as evidence for the defense arising from the discovery and experts.

The defense outlined its rationale for requesting that all of these categories be allowed. It goes on to state that President Biden “continues to make defamatory remarks about the Jan. 6 defendants and MAGA Republicans, in conjunction with the Jan. 6 committee actions, to a certain extent biased against his prosecution.” By this point, the defense suggested changing venues as an alternative, “because there’s no way he could receive a fair trial in the District of Columbia.”

The final document concerns the defense’s ability to cross-examine the U.S. Secret Service agents the prosecution plans to call as witnesses. The administration says the security protocol calls for limiting the range of questions the Secret Service can ask during the trial.

“This important information must be explored during cross-examination,” the defense said in its request to deny the government’s request.

Attorney Jonathan Gross was named co-counsel for Barnett on September 23.

Barnett is charged with: Obstructing official process; Aiding and abetting; Entering and remaining in a restricted building or site with a lethal or dangerous weapon; Disorderly and disruptive conduct with a lethal or dangerous weapon in a restricted building or site; Entering and Remaining in certain rooms of the Capitol; Disorderly conduct within the Capitol; Procession, demonstration or picketing in the Capitol; Theft of government property.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

source link

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles