Tag: defendants

Proud Boys attorneys: Informant had contact with defense team, defendants

[ad_1]

It’s the latest wrench in a trial that has stretched into its fourth month, the most significant to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Prosecutors have charged Tarrio, Rehl and three others — Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs and Dominic Pezzola — with igniting the attack, methodically working to breach multiple police lines and ultimately entering the building itself to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election as president.
Prosecutors pushed back Thursday, contending that any suggestion of impropriety was baseless and that the informant was never tasked with gathering information about the Proud Boys defendants or their lawyers. They produced additional documents to the defense teams outlining the informant’s work for the FBI and emphasized that her relationship with the bureau was terminated soon after she was subpoenaed by Tarrio’s lawyers to appear as a witness.
The Justice Department supplemented its response with an affidavit from an FBI agent based in San Antonio, who described the informant as someone who had been on the bureau’s radar since 2019 after she came forward due to “her status as a victim.” The agent indicated that the informant helped the bureau with Jan. 6-related matters and had provided information about two of the Proud Boys defendants to the bureau in 2019 — before she officially signed up as a paid informant.
In a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Tim Kelly, government attorneys agreed that the suggestions made by defense lawyers were serious and that they would attempt to provide additional information to allay their concerns. But they said prosecutors had no knowledge of the informant’s contacts with defendants and their counsel.
“This is all news to the government,” said Denise Cheung, acting deputy chief of DOJ’s criminal division.
But attorneys for Biggs and Pezzola said the damage could be too great to continue the trial. Norm Pattis, one of Biggs’ attorneys, described “20 to 30″ contacts between Biggs and the informant, including discussions of his legal representation and finances.
“I don’t want the trial to proceed,” Pattis said.
An attorney for Pezzola, Roger Roots, said the informant had similarly helped shape his client’s witness list. And Nicholas Smith, attorney for Nordean, said the informant had reached out to him “unsolicited” with questions and suggestions for defense strategy.

Kelly emphasized that the key question he’s considering is whether the prosecutors leading the trial learned anything they shouldn’t have known as a result of the informant’s contacts with the defendants or their lawyers. He said he didn’t see an immediate reason to pause the trial but that he would consider the matter further on Friday.
Defense attorneys have repeatedly raised questions about the presence of informants within the Proud Boys and how they might have been deployed by the FBI to track the group ahead of Jan. 6. Jurors in the trial have been shown evidence that there were some informants — also called confidential human sources, or CHSs — within the group, both in text message chains and on the ground on Jan. 6.
The use of such sources is commonplace for the FBI, but there are risks when they remain involved in potential criminal activity alongside targets of an investigation.
In the three-page filing, Hernandez expressed frustration that the Justice Department had not shared more details with the defense team about the informants used in the investigation.
The information about the newly disclosed confidential source, she noted, came a day before one of the defendants was prepared to call this witness to the stand.
Prosecutors have bristled at claims of impropriety, noting that they have made nearly 10 confidential sources available to testify as part of the defense case who could discuss their contacts with the bureau. But the Justice Department is resisting efforts by the Proud Boys defense team to demand testimony from FBI agents who handled those informants and were in touch with them in the days and weeks leading to Jan. 6.
[ad_2]
#Proud #Boys #attorneys #Informant #contact #defense #team #defendants
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 23, 2023
Proud Boys attorneys: Informant had contact with defense team, defendants

[ad_1]

It’s the latest wrench in a trial that has stretched into its fourth month, the most significant to emerge from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Prosecutors have charged Tarrio, Rehl and three others — Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs and Dominic Pezzola — with igniting the attack, methodically working to breach multiple police lines and ultimately entering the building itself to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election as president.
Prosecutors pushed back Thursday, contending that any suggestion of impropriety was baseless and that the informant was never tasked with gathering information about the Proud Boys defendants or their lawyers. They produced additional documents to the defense teams outlining the informant’s work for the FBI and emphasized that her relationship with the bureau was terminated soon after she was subpoenaed by Tarrio’s lawyers to appear as a witness.
The Justice Department supplemented its response with an affidavit from an FBI agent based in San Antonio, who described the informant as someone who had been on the bureau’s radar since 2019 after she came forward due to “her status as a victim.” The agent indicated that the informant helped the bureau with Jan. 6-related matters and had provided information about two of the Proud Boys defendants to the bureau in 2019 — before she officially signed up as a paid informant.
In a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Tim Kelly, government attorneys agreed that the suggestions made by defense lawyers were serious and that they would attempt to provide additional information to allay their concerns. But they said prosecutors had no knowledge of the informant’s contacts with defendants and their counsel.
“This is all news to the government,” said Denise Cheung, acting deputy chief of DOJ’s criminal division.
But attorneys for Biggs and Pezzola said the damage could be too great to continue the trial. Norm Pattis, one of Biggs’ attorneys, described “20 to 30″ contacts between Biggs and the informant, including discussions of his legal representation and finances.
“I don’t want the trial to proceed,” Pattis said.
An attorney for Pezzola, Roger Roots, said the informant had similarly helped shape his client’s witness list. And Nicholas Smith, attorney for Nordean, said the informant had reached out to him “unsolicited” with questions and suggestions for defense strategy.

Kelly emphasized that the key question he’s considering is whether the prosecutors leading the trial learned anything they shouldn’t have known as a result of the informant’s contacts with the defendants or their lawyers. He said he didn’t see an immediate reason to pause the trial but that he would consider the matter further on Friday.
Defense attorneys have repeatedly raised questions about the presence of informants within the Proud Boys and how they might have been deployed by the FBI to track the group ahead of Jan. 6. Jurors in the trial have been shown evidence that there were some informants — also called confidential human sources, or CHSs — within the group, both in text message chains and on the ground on Jan. 6.
The use of such sources is commonplace for the FBI, but there are risks when they remain involved in potential criminal activity alongside targets of an investigation.
In the three-page filing, Hernandez expressed frustration that the Justice Department had not shared more details with the defense team about the informants used in the investigation.
The information about the newly disclosed confidential source, she noted, came a day before one of the defendants was prepared to call this witness to the stand.
Prosecutors have bristled at claims of impropriety, noting that they have made nearly 10 confidential sources available to testify as part of the defense case who could discuss their contacts with the bureau. But the Justice Department is resisting efforts by the Proud Boys defense team to demand testimony from FBI agents who handled those informants and were in touch with them in the days and weeks leading to Jan. 6.
[ad_2]
#Proud #Boys #attorneys #Informant #contact #defense #team #defendants
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 23, 2023
Judge denies Jan. 6 defendant’s bid for time to review McCarthy’s Capitol security footage

[ad_1]

Boasberg’s ruling is the latest ripple caused by McCarthy’s decision to widen access to 44,000 hours of Capitol security footage from Jan. 6. The Capitol Police had previously turned over about 14,000 hours of the day’s footage that leaders said encompassed crucial time periods of the riot, as well as the relevant camera angles.
It’s unclear whether the additional footage includes evidence that will influence any of the 950-plus Jan. 6 criminal cases. But several defendants have said they intend to access the materials, which House Republicans have agreed to facilitate. The Justice Department has yet to indicate whether it, too, will attempt to obtain and review the footage.
At Friday’s hearing, prosecutors opposed Carpenter’s request, saying they had pieced together the “overwhelming” amount of her movements using CCTV footage, leaving only “a matter of seconds” unaccounted for. Carpenter already has access to a “massive” trove of CCTV footage, they noted, and defendants have the ability to request specific camera angles they would like to focus on if they believe they need additional material.
Prosecutors also suggested that they remain largely in the dark about what the cache of footage newly unearthed by McCarthy might include.
“We don’t have what the speaker has,” said assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Cook, adding, “In any case, there’s always the possibility some information may be out there.”
Prosecutors are required to disclose to defendants any potentially exculpatory evidence they possess — a particularly thorny challenge in Jan. 6 cases as a result of the massive amounts of video evidence captured by Capitol security cameras, policy bodycams, journalists and rioters themselves, who recorded hundreds of hours worth of footage.
But that requirement isn’t limitless, particularly when it comes to evidence that is in the possession of another agency — like the Capitol Police, an arm of Congress — and if courts determine the government has made good-faith efforts to provide as much material as possible to defendants.
Carpenter’s attorneys argued in court Friday that McCarthy’s batch might help fill “gaps” in the footage that would provide context to the actions Carpenter took inside the Capitol. They contended that it might help contextualize some of the actions she took that resulted in the felony charges DOJ lodged, including for obstructing Congress’ proceedings and for participating in a civil disorder. She sought a 60-day delay in her trial, which is set to begin Monday, in order to determine whether any of the new footage might be relevant.

Boasberg agreed that the request was legitimate. Any attorney would want to see a new batch of potentially exculpatory evidence, he said.
“It’s certainly not a frivolous request by any means,” he said.
But Boasberg agreed that the gaps Carpenter’s attorneys described were “minimal” and that the defense lawyers didn’t explain specifically why any additional footage might help Carpenter’s case.
Prosecutors trying the seditious conspiracy case of several leaders of the Proud Boys also recently confronted the issue, when a defense attorney asked the Justice Department whether it would help organize access to the additional footage. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough called it a “serious question” and a “serious issue,” but said it was too soon to say how DOJ would be handling the matter.
[ad_2]
#Judge #denies #Jan #defendants #bid #time #review #McCarthys #Capitol #security #footage
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 4, 2023
House GOP moving to let Jan. 6 defendants access Capitol security footage

[ad_1]
Loudermilk will be leading the effort given his senior Administration panel post, according to a senior Republican congressional aide who addressed the evolving decision on condition of anonymity. The GOP aide added that the new House majority is working on a system that eventually will allow members of the media and the public to access some Jan. 6 records as well.
The footage access plan, described by three people familiar with the discussions, follows McCarthy’s move to grant exclusive access to the 41,000 hours of internal Capitol film from the day of the riot to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. McCarthy and his allies are also making clear that there will be limits on the extent of material permitted to leave the tightly controlled confines of the Capitol, where Carlson’s team has been reviewing the footage for days.
“What gets released is obviously going to be scrutinized to make sure you’re not exposing any sensitive information that hasn’t already been exposed,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).
McCarthy told reporters Tuesday that he ultimately envisions releasing nearly all of the Jan. 6 surveillance footage publicly, with exceptions for sensitive security information.
“I think putting it out all to the American public, you can see the truth, see exactly what transpired that day and everybody can have the exact same” access, McCarthy said. “My intention is to release it to everyone.”
McCarthy dismissed questions about his decision to share the footage with Carlson, who has downplayed the Jan. 6 attack, describing it as a typical media exclusive. He noted that he did not consult with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell about his decision.
Similar measures would be taken with any footage opened up to Jan. 6 defendants and their lawyers, two of the people familiar said, though details of those steps remain unclear for now. Among the big logistical questions Republicans are still discussing: whether any footage they open up to defendants can be used in court proceedings, which would effectively make it public.
McCarthy’s decision to let Carlson view the footage from the violent riot by former President Donald Trump’s supporters has already been raised in two ongoing Jan. 6 criminal cases. In one instance, a lawyer for one of the Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy has asked prosecutors to determine whether they will access and share the footage; then on Tuesday morning, Joseph McBride, an attorney for Jan. 6 defendant Ryan Nichols, claimed he had already been given permission to review the footage.

It’s unclear if the Justice Department has requested similar access. A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The footage release marks the latest twist in McCarthy’s complicated history with Jan. 6. He led more than 130 House Republicans in objecting to the 2020 election results, even after rioters tore through the Capitol, then condemned the riot in the immediate aftermath and said Trump bore responsibility for it.
Colleagues said McCarthy pleaded with Trump amid the chaos to call off his supporters as they ransacked the building and pummeled police. But after meeting with Trump weeks after the siege, McCarthy strongly opposed Democratic efforts to investigate the breach, particularly after then Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked two of his members from serving on the panel. He ended up spurning a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.
Though many House Republicans have indicated they hope to move on from regularly discussing the attack, McCarthy’s decision to allow access to the footage — following pressure from a faction of conservative detractors who worked initially to deny him the speakership — has forced Jan. 6 back onto the agenda.
Speaking to his conference for the first time since permitting Carlson to review the copious amounts of internal Capitol security footage, McCarthy sought to quell any internal concerns among members, according to three House Republicans in the room who spoke on condition of anonymity.
During Tuesday’s closed-door conference meeting, McCarthy pointed to footage that Democrats played during select committee hearings last year which showed various locations during the assault, according to one of those Republicans — and described the criticism he’s received for granting Carlson access as “hypocrisy.”
Scalise also argued during a press conference Tuesday morning that the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee had already released similar types of information, as had former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s daughter in a documentary film.
People familiar with the Jan. 6 select committee investigation have emphasized that the footage the panel aired followed intensive negotiations with the Capitol Police, which often pushed back to restrict the length of clips or number of angles the committee could show. Some footage aired by the panel had also been previously made public in ongoing criminal cases stemming from the riot.
It’s unclear what similar steps McCarthy is taking, and as a result his access for Carlson has sparked staunch pushback from Democrats, who say any wide release of unvetted footage could jeopardize Capitol security. The Capitol Police have warned repeatedly in court that any widespread access to security footage could provide a roadmap for potential perpetrators of any future assault on the Capitol.
But dozens of hours of security footage have also been publicly released in the hundreds of criminal cases that have been brought forward since Jan. 6.
Loudermilk is intimately familiar with the Jan. 6 select committee’s handling of security footage. The panel released film of a group of tourists he led through Capitol office buildings on Jan. 5, 2021 — one of whom approached the Capitol grounds the following day while recording menacing statements about Democratic leaders.
Some Republicans across the ideological spectrum praised McCarthy for his move to release the footage.
“Best if all Americans have access,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who hails from a competitive battleground district. “I don’t hear much about this at home.”
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the pro-Trump House Freedom Caucus, praised McCarthy for the move and shrugged off those voicing security concerns: “This place is so convoluted. That’s why they don’t have a map on it … I just got lost trying to get to the tunnel.”
The Jan. 6 footage decision is getting a lot of attention during what Republicans say is an otherwise calm week — so far. In Tuesday morning’s conference meeting, Republicans discussed upcoming bills they will vote on this week, while Scalise also previewed plans for elements of their upcoming agenda, such as a parents’ bill of rights and an energy package set to hit the floor the spring, according to two GOP sources.

[ad_2]
#House #GOP #moving #Jan #defendants #access #Capitol #security #footage
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 28, 2023