What are the legal violations and criminal penalties likely to be for the protesters that entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021? I'm curious to know what sort of legal ramifications there can or will be for the Trump supporters who entered the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. I've seen it being called an &quot;assault&quot; in the news, but there is a video circulating that shows a police officer waving people in beyond the barriers. Is it trespass if the protesters were invited in? Will there will be charges of vandalism for some people? What other charges are likely? What are the penalties? Are accessory to murder charges possible given a police officer and a protester died? Numerous protesters have gone on YouTube and posted videos bragging about their activities. Some of these people give their names and where they're from, and even seem to actively admit guilt, to the point of being specific about their crimes. What sort of trouble are these people realistically looking at?
It is hard to know what to call the people who entered the capitol and its grounds without biasing the answer by the selection of terms. I am going to call them &quot;intruders&quot; because I must call them something to make an answer. If police or other authorized people actually invited the intruders in, then some otherwise possible charges go away, at least for those so invited. But the videos and other news coverage I have seen do not appear to include any such invitation. Some do include police or security shouting at intruders to &quot;stop&quot; or &quot;stay out&quot;. Some show intruders breaking doors or windows to gain access, and others coming in through such broken openings. I don't see how anyone who entered in such a way could plausibly argue that s/he was invited in. Documenting exactly who said and did what during the hours that the intrusion lasted, would be a huge effort. I doubt it will ever be fully accomplished. But it seems clear that many laws were violated by at least some of the intruders, both Federal laws and DC laws. These might include: Criminal tresspass DC Code § 22–3302 Unlawful entry on property. Penalty: fine and up to 6 months imprisonment DC Code § 22–3211 Theft. Penalty: Up to 10 years, depending on circumstances and value of property. Up to 180 days for 2nd degree. See § 22–3212. DC code § 22–404 Assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner Penalty: fine and up to 180 days; up to 3 years if &quot;serious bodily injury to another&quot; results (defined as requiring prompt hospital treatment) DC Code § 22–405.01 Resisting arrest. Penalty: fine and up to 6 months. [DC code 18 DCMR 2000.2] Failure to obey police officer. Penalty: fine up to $1,000. DC code § 22–2101 Felony murder, for those who can be proved to have engaged in robbery, housebreaking or any of the other listed felonies (most of which would not apply). 18 U.S. Code § 1752 &quot;Restricted building or grounds&quot; Possible penalty: fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years for those using or carrying firearms or dangerous weapons, up to 1 year otherwise. Several subsections of this were probably violated by many of the intruders. 18 U.S. Code § 1361 &quot;depredation against any property of the United States&quot;. Penalty: Fine plus up to 10 years if value over $1,000, up to 1 year if under $1,000. 18 U.S. Code § 2112 Robbing personal property of the United States. Penalty: up to 15 years. Some intruders were seen in videos carrying off fixtures and property from the capitol. 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities. Penalty: fine and up to 1 year; up to 5 years if there is intent to use the weapon to commit a crime. Some intruders are seen carrying guns. 40 U.S. Code § 5104 Restricts various activities on the Capitol grounds including: &quot;A person may not step or climb on, remove, or in any way injure any statue, seat, wall, fountain, or other erection or architectural feature, or any tree, shrub, plant, or turf, in the Grounds.&quot; and &quot;may not carry on or have readily accessible to any individual on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings a firearm, a dangerous weapon, explosives, or an incendiary device&quot;. Also, &quot;may not knowingly, with force and violence, enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress.&quot; also a person may not &quot;parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Grounds; or display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.&quot; without authorization. 18 U.S. Code § 231 A person who transports a firearm for use in a civil disorder, or obstructs a law enforcement officer in the course of a civil disorder. Penalty: Fine and up to five years. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy. Discussed at length in the lawfare blog article Penalty: fine and up to 20 years. Which, if any, of the above laws might actually be charged against one or another intruder there is no way to know yet, and there way well be other provisions which would apply that I have not thought of or found.
The Secret Service is primarily concerned with protecting the people and information they oversee, not enforcing laws. They have the power to arrest someone for any unlawful conduct, but unless a drug user is presenting as a threat to a protectee, they are unlikely to be arrested by the Secret Service. More likely the Service would simply escort the person off the premises and refer the matter to the DC Metro Police to handle. Edit: Such a case would not be turned over to the US Capitol Police (as originally written) It would most likely be referred to the DC Metropolitan Police Department.Corrected my answer above.
So I'm fascinated with the OJ trial and I've read a ton about it. I'll try to answer your question both accepting your premise as true, and then also going into what actually happened. First of all, jury nullification cannot be overturned in the US. The double jeopardy clause forbids it. This is such a powerful tool, in fact, that there are strict rules that prevent defense lawyers from mentioning or even hinting at jury nullification, in front of the jury, in almost all circumstances. It doesn't mean D is safe from all legal liability. OJ, obviously, was found liable in the civil trial. Sometimes other jurisdictions can prosecute. For example, after the officers in the Rodney King beating were acquitted in state court, the federal government got them for violating federal hate crime statutes. Second, looking at your premise. If jurors think D is guilty, but also being framed, that's not necessarily jury nullification. Remember, a criminal defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that 'probably guilty' means 'not guilty.' That said, there may be times when a jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt, but is so disgusted by the police tactics used in the case that they acquit. This would be jury nullification. What actually happened in the OJ case: Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the stand. He lied and said he'd never said the N word, and the defense produced tapes of him saying it a ton. The defense recalled him to the stand. Because perjury is a serious crime, this time he came in with his own defense lawyer, and did nothing but take the fifth on the stand. In a genius move, OJ's defense team asked him whether he planted any evidence in the OJ case. He didn't deny it, instead he took the fifth (again, as he was doing to every question). This was enough to sow reasonable doubt about OJ's guilt based on the evidence in that trial (there's obviously no actual doubt, in real life, that he's guilty). So, what actually happened wasn't jury nullification.
They can’t But they aren’t This is the law (as amended). Section 9 contains the penalties. In any event the police don’t fine people they issue an infringement notice which is an allegation of an offense - police can issue these even if they reasonably believe they took place - they are entitled to be wrong. The person given the notice can admit the offense by paying the fine or contest the allegation by going to court.
There’s some truth in it When a matter, particularly a criminal matter, is before a court or sub judice, public comment is forbidden and may be contempt of court unless they are “a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.” Technically, it only applies to media reporting (probably including social media) and only while the proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there is an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons. Notwithstanding, there is nothing preventing an organisation having a “no comment” policy on any matter once there is police involvement.
These charges aren't the same offense. They are three different offenses, all of which arise from the same conduct. Imagine throwing a grenade in a building because you saw a police officer about to discover evidence connecting you to a crime. I think most people would agree that there's no reason you could not be charged with murder, arson, and tampering with evidence under those circumstances. Likewise, Chauvin committed multiple distinct offenses when he kneeled on George Floyd's neck -- for instance, murder charges are based on the act of causing a death, while manslaughter charges are based on the act of creating a risk of death -- and the state is free to seek punishment for all of those offenses. Double jeopardy doesn't have any application to the case at this point. The Double Jeopardy Clause doesn't say you can't face multiple charges for the same conduct; it says you can't face multiple trials for the same charges.
I feel that a person, not the subject of arrest, should be protected by the 4th amendment if they choose to remain in their vehicle, even if “ordered” to exit the vehicle by an officer. The intuition is fine, but is basically incorrect. I’m most interested to know: How would a driver (1) Politely (2) determine if a given instruction to exit the vehicle must be complied with, and (3) decline the instruction without giving the officer “cause” or otherwise damaging a potential case? From a practical perspective the only workable response is to comply. There are times when this is done without a reasonable suspicion (or in some cases probable cause) or other legal basis, but it is pretty much impossible for you to dispute this one the spot. Most of the time, the officer will have the legal authority to order you to leave the vehicle. If they order you to exit the vehicle despite not having the legal authority to do so, the right course of action is to comply and then to file a complaint with the agency employing the officer or to bring a civil lawsuit against the officer. There are good answers to a basically duplicate question at How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
It seems to me that some commentators/articles have inadvertently conflated different legislation and a recent event involving the seizure of equipment from protester Steve Bray in Parliament Square. Some articles about Steve Bray have named or otherwise referred to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 without an explanation of any link between that person and this law - to me there is no link in the context of Bray's equipment seizure (the police may have mentioned other newer powers to Bray). Among other things, section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (as amended) explicitly prohibits the unauthorised use of &quot;amplified noise equipment&quot; (including but not limited to loudspeakers and loudhailers) within Parliament Square and (the amendment) &quot;the Palace of Westminster controlled area&quot;. Westminster Council provides a map in pdf format of the respective areas: Appendix to Protocol for enforcement of provisions in relation to noise nuisance in the vicinity of Parliament. Before the PRSRA 2011, sections 137 and 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gave the Home Secretary the power to prohibit the unauthorised use of &quot;loudspeakers&quot; in &quot;designated areas&quot; no more than one kilometre around Parliament Square. Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 amends the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to &quot;public processions and public assemblies&quot;, including clauses related to &quot;noise&quot;. Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 abolished the common law offence of public nuisance and created the statutory offence of &quot;intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance&quot;. This more recent legislation has been criticised in relation to protests generally (not solely those that involve megaphones), e.g. by the Joint Committee on Human Rights its witnesses in their scrutiny of the-then Bill. Quote: The Bill introduces a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance” which was previously an offence at common law. There is a wide range of non-violent conduct that may be caught by the statutory offence, which potentially criminalises some forms of peaceful protest. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 12 months if tried summarily and 10 years if tried on indictment. A person can also be issued with a fine.77 A number of our witnesses raised concerns about the impact of these changes and its compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. We share some of those concerns. In summary the explicit prohibition of &quot;amplified noise equipment&quot; is limited to Parliament Square and &quot;the Palace of Westminster controlled area&quot; but one can easily imagine the police claiming that a protester's use of a megaphone is a public nuisance.