The Justice Department Is Struggling With January 6 Protest Cases -- an Overview
The AP has a
story out today detailing some of the struggles that the Justice Department is encountering in its efforts to prosecute hundreds of people who were in attendance at the protests in Washington, D.C., on January 6.
I’ve been watching this process from what I’d describe as a “macro” level for several weeks, trying to avoid getting sucked into focusing too much on one particular case or another. But yesterday, I did write
this story about what I believe is the first substantive appeals court decision of significance on the government’s efforts, a case that concerned the nature of the presentation of evidence made by the government — as well as the conclusions drawn by the district court judge from that evidence — in connection with a decision to hold Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart in custody pending trial. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the detention order entered against Munchel and Eisenhart and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing — which language strongly suggesting that appropriate terms and conditions of pretrial release pending trial should be determined by the District Judge.
The factual analysis of the Court of Appeals — that Munchel and Eisenhart didn’t actually do anything other than entering the Capitol through an open door where Capitol Police were standing and allowing the crowd to enter — reflects some of the problems which the AP story highlights, i.e., the evidence the government is bringing before the courts doesn’t measure up to the rhetoric used by prosecutors and federal agents in their early comments, both in the courtroom as well as sworn affidavits.
The Justice Department Is Struggling With January 6 Protest Cases -- an Overview
