A federal judge will hear arguments Wednesday over whether to delay one of the Justice Department’s criminal signatures on Jan. 6 over concerns that a high-profile congressional inquiry into the Capitol breach may have produced key evidence they do not have. seen by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Five alleged members of the Proud Boys extremist group, including their former leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, are due to stand trial on August 8 on charges of plotting extremism. The trial, which is expected to last more than a month, represents one of the two most significant criminal cases to date in the Justice Department’s investigation into the planning and execution of the attack on Congress, which delayed the ritual count for hours. of confirmation votes Joe Biden Presidential victory in 2020. Prosecutors and defense attorneys in the Proud Boys case and other January 6 criminal cases have become increasingly frustrated over the past two weeks as a select parliamentary committee hosts a series of closely-watched national television hearings on the attack and events. that preceded. . The commission has cited witness statements and video evidence What lawmakers are saying is potentially criminal behavior on the part of former President Donald Trump and others who falsely claimed the 2020 election had been stolen. The hearings do not contain any objections or questions. A defense attorney, John Hull, wrote in a court statement last week that hearings tarnish the potential jury group “wonderfully ragged, indifferent, attentive to the Washington media.” Six video clips for the committee’s January 6 hearings so far Experts say there is a bigger legal problem: the possibility that the commission intends to release a public report in September, buried in the minutes of more than 1,000 witness interviews, is evidence that could help the Proud Boys. The committee said it would distribute the transfers to the Ministry of Justice when the hearings are completed. Prosecutors said the timetable is not good enough because they have to see any such evidence long before the trial begins. In a letter to the commission last week, senior Justice Department officials wrote: “It is crucial that the Ministry be able to assess the credibility of witnesses who have testified to several government agencies to assess the validity of any possible criminal prosecution and ensure that all relevant information is examined during the criminal investigation. “ In response, committee chair Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) Said the committee would work with the Department of Justice, but must first complete the hearing. At various times, the nine lawmakers on the panel have suggested that they have uncovered evidence of crimes committed before January 6 and prompted the Justice Department to become more aggressive. Some legal experts, however, say the most important question is whether the commission has gathered at least some evidence that could favor the defense. According to a long-standing court record called Brady, federal prosecutors are required to share with the defense any acquittal the government has. When prosecutors fail to share this information, charges or convictions can be dismissed by the court. “As a matter of separation of powers, this is a crazy mindset,” said Stanley Brand, a former member of the House of Representatives who recently represented some witnesses and defendants on Jan. 6. “But it was also completely inevitable – you have the largest criminal investigation in the history of the Department of Justice and you drop in the middle of it, a set of high-profile congressional hearings with 1,000 testimonies. This is a monstrous problem in fulfilling your obligations to Brady under the law. My guess is [prosecutors] I do not really know most of what is in these deposits. “We have only seen a small part.” It is not enough for prosecutors to say they can not hand over material they do not have because Congress will not give it to them. In 2015, a federal judge dismissed an obstruction charge against a former BP executive accused of misleading lawmakers about the seriousness of an oil spill, ruling that if Congress did not provide evidence, it could not have a fair trial. The executive was later acquitted in the trial on a relevant charge of perjury. Analysis: All the January 6 evidence that Trump and Sia knew their plan was corrupt The House committee is planning at least one hearing in September, which could coincide with the end of an August Proud Boys trial or jury hearings. September will also include intense struggles in Congress, in which the significance or danger of January 6 is likely to be frequently discussed. However, if the judge accepts the requests for a delay in the trial, this could have a successive impact on the Justice Department’s work in other cases on January 6, pushing prosecutors’ timetables for possible further investigative or prosecution decisions. Most of the defendants in the upcoming trial have asked for a postponement until December – both after the hearings and the congressional elections. Federal prosecutors also asked the judge for a delay, citing the need to review the committee’s minutes before the trial. Hull, the defense attorney representing Proud Boy leader Joseph Biggs, filed court documents accusing lawmakers of turning their January 6 investigation into a circus, using “deceptions, outright lies and high-pitched noise” to Biggs. The founder of the Cowboys for Trump was sentenced on January 6 for trespassing Lawyers for another defendant in the case, Ethan Nordean, agreed on Monday that delaying a trial until the commission’s hearings “would help improve, if not eliminate the unjust bias”, but argued that their client should also be released on bail. if there is a delay. Forcing Nordean to choose between his constitutional rights to liberty, an impartial jury trial and an expedited trial would not only be “intolerable”, but would fuel the suspicion that he was being held in a pre-trial detention not on the basis of his rule of law. “but to punish him before he is convicted or to force him to relinquish his right to a trial,” wrote lawyers David B. Smith and Nicholas D. Smith. Nordean, also known as “Rufio” and “Panman”, was one of the alleged Proud Boys leaders on the ground that day with the Biggs, leading a group of up to 200 people from the Washington Monument to the Capitol before from Trump’s speech and course. around the building. Videos from that day show that members of the group made several of the first and most aggressive attempts to confront the police, break through roadblocks and invade the Capitol. Prosecutors also say Nordean and Biggs led efforts to organize and recruit Proud Boys supporters to come to Washington and raise funds for their protective equipment and radios.
