Datasets:
johnearlesullivan
/
capitol

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
11.3k
the apparent violations of his release conditions , that inquiry stands in a very different posture than
it did on January 15. T he defendant is alleged to have willfully participated in a massive and
momentous obstructi on effort – an attempt to prevent the congressional certification of the results
of a Presidential election . The defendant has been indicted on two obstructive felonies under 18
U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2) and 231(a)(3) – the former involving obstruction of an official proceeding
through lawless and unauthorized conduct, and the latter involving obstruction and interference Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS Document 6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 2613
with the official duties of a law enforcement officer. The defendant, according to his own video
footage , apparently exhorted others to “bur n this shit down,” “break that shit,” and – amid the
smashing of the Speaker’s Lobby doors – “Go! Go! Get this shit!” He celebrated the breach
of the Capitol as “revolutionary” “history.” He boasted of how “it’s only a little jail time… I do
this all the time.” He spoke of “[h]aul[ing]” officers out and sought to cajole other s performing
their official duties to “stand down” or “go home.” The assessment of risk, to be sure, is a
forward -looking inquiry. But any assessment of risk is necessarily infor med by past actions, and
here defendant has engaged in marked obstruction of both official proceeding s and officers that
reflects a brazen disrespect for the orderly administration of justice .
The defendant’s apparent violations of his court -imposed rele ase conditions provide even
more pointed and compelling examples of his attempts to obstruct justice in this very case. In
fact, in his Infowars interview, the defendant, in discussing the issue of censorship, conversed
freely about the myriad ways he has sought to circumvent other unspecified restrictions on his use
of technology and social media platforms. 3 In short, it is clear t oday that this defendant readily
poses “a serious risk” of obstructing or attempting to obstruct justice pursuant to § 3142(f)(2)(B).
Analysis
Under § 3148, the “judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and detention” upon
finding: (1) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any condition of release,
and (2) that no conditions will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of
3 The defendant says: “[T]he Twitter account that you saw that I had, JaydenX, that was, you
know, my fourth account. And Facebook, I was banned to the point on Facebook where, even if
I use a VPN, and it was pinging my IP address out of China, I still couldn’t create a new account.
I could make, have a new phone number, a new email, and new name, use a different computer or
phone ; I actually bought another phone just to see if I could log into Facebook, still didn’t work.” Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS Document 6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 2614
any other person or the community or that the person is unlikely to abide by any conditions of
release. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1) -(2). Under § 3142(g), moreover, the judicial officer shall
similarly consider whether there are conditio ns of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community – an
inquiry that considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of
the evidence, (3) his history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger
posed by his release. The government proffers the submission of the defendant’s supervision
officer through the Pretrial Services Agency as the requisite clear and convincing evidence of the
violations, and submits that no combination of conditions will assure that the defendant will not
pose a danger to the safety of the community.
In considering the nature and circumstances of the offense , what is particularly troubling
about the defendant’s depicted conduct on January 6 was its consistency throughout his extended
foray through the Capitol Building. Defendant positioned himself with a front seat to not one,
but multiple confrontations with officers at multiple locations , and made consistently gleeful
exhortati ons about burning and breaking things throughout the building and its grounds.
The weight of the evidence likewise favors detention. The defendant admitted in
voluntary interviews to his unlawful presence inside the Capitol and identified the video foot age
provided as his own. His acts and statements are memorialized on video.
The defendant’s history and characteristics further weigh in favor of detention. On July
13, 2020, the defendant was charged with Rioting and Criminal Mischief by the local law
enforcement authorities in Provo, Utah, based on his activities around a June 30, 2020, protest in
which a civilian was shot and injured. The case is still pending , but the fact the defendant was Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS Document 6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 2615
charged with analogous offenses while on release in that matter underscores the recurring threat
he poses to the community. Moreover, the defendant has not merely run afoul of release
conditions in this case ; he has brazenly flouted them, in some cases flouting multiple conditions at
once. Several violations appa rently came on the heels of detailed instructions to the contrary by
his supervision officer. The defendant’s actions demonstrate an unwillingness to grapple with
the seriousness of his charges and a contempt for the courts and its proceedings .
Finally, the defendant poses a danger to the community. He breached the U.S. Capitol in
tactical gear , wound his way to the front of numerous crowds and confrontations, and cheered and
attempted to instigate others in committing criminal acts. That even in hindsight he feels no
remorse for his participation in the events that unfolded underscores the ongoing threat he poses
to the community.
Given the above assessment, the government respectfully submits that there are no
conditions that will assure that the defendant will not continue to pose a danger to the safety of
any other person or the community, nor are there conditions that the defendant is likely to abide
by.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, th e United States respectfully requests that the Court grant the
Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS Document 6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 2616
government’ s motion to detain the defendant pending trial.
Respectfully submitted,
M ichael R. Sherwin
Acting United States Attorney
New York Bar No. 4444188
By:
Candice C. Wong D.C. Bar No. 990903
Candice.wong@usdoj.gov Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7849
Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS Document 6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 2617
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 4, 2021, I caused a copy of the foregoing motion to be
served on counsel of record via electronic filing.
__ ____________
Candice C . Wong
Assistant United States Attorney
Case 1:21-cr-00078-EGS Document 6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 26
EXHIBIT A