WASHINGTON (CN) — Insisting that the certification of Electoral College votes doesn’t qualify as an “official proceeding,” more than a dozen defendants in the largest and most complex Capitol riot case thus far asked a federal judge Wednesday to toss out the most serious charges against them.
“There is absolutely nothing about the Electoral College certification that the average person would believe is justice related,” said David Fischer, who represents Thomas Caldwell, the lead defendant in the motion to dismiss.
Caldwell is joined by 14 other defendants members of the right-wing militia group called the Oath Keepers; they are charged with offenses such as obstructing an official proceeding and criminal conspiracy related to the riot on Jan. 6 in which supporters of then-President Donald Trump sought to overthrow the government. Both chambers of Congress were meeting at the time in a ceremony to certify the results of the 2020 election that put President Joe Biden in power.
In court Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amita P. Mehta appeared skeptical of Fischer's argument that the definition of “official proceeding” applies to congressional committee hearings, judicial hearings and impeachment hearings — anything that is judicial or quasijudicial and involves witnesses and testimonies.
“It seems odd to me that a committee hearing would qualify as an official proceeding but when both chambers of Congress convene it does not,“ Mehta replied. “That seems backward to me."
If Congress intended the statute to be as limited as Fischer says, Mehta continued, lawmakers would have written it that way.
Carmen Hernandez, an attorney representing defendant Donovan Crowl, frantically made her arguments to Mehta that the statute outlawing obstruction of official proceedings is unconstitutionally vague. She repeatedly yelled and interrupted the judge.
“You know, Mrs. Hernandez, it's better not to interrupt me,” Mehta told Hernandez, noting that he never interrupted her.
“I’m not sure that’s true, your honor,” Hernandez replied.
Hernandez argued that the Justice Department relied on a vague reading of a federal law to prosecute Capitol rioters for exercising their First Amendment rights, and that interrupting Congress, going in, shouting and making a fool of yourself is “what we Americans do.”
“You think these defendants were exercising their First Amendment rights?” Mehta asked. “By rushing past police? By rushing past barriers?”
“Yes,” Hernandez replied.
Mehta also heard arguments on a venue challenge for the case, with Fischer arguing that Capitol rioters couldn’t get a fair trial because of Washington residents would be biased.
“Potential district jurors loathe Donald Trump and, by extension, his supporters,” the brief states. “The highly intelligent and thoughtful residents of the district, unfortunately, eschew intelligent and rational thinking when all matters ‘Trump’ are at issue. Commentators have referred to this phenomena as ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome.’”
Fischer told Mehta that Washington residents don’t have traditional American values, and that they despise rural America.
“District residents, who largely style themselves as chic, sophisticated, worldly, high-brow urbanites, are repulsed by rural America’s traditional values, patriotism, religion, gun ownership and perceived lack of education,” the brief says.
Mehta bit back, expressing his disapproval with the brief.
“I think you’ve done a wonderful job for your client. I really do,” Mehta said. “But this brief reads less like a legal brief than something you might read on a blog. And that's not acceptable. I expect better from you. I expect better from everybody in this courtroom.”
Fischer responded that he may have gone too far in his brief, but that his client was sick of being labeled a racist by politicians and the news media.
“You just can’t come in here and start sneaking statements about traditional values and whether people in a particular city have them or despise them,” Mehta said. “It’s just not going to fly.”
Mehta didn’t make a decision on the motions, and didn’t set a date by which he would rule. The case has a status conference scheduled for Sept. 16, and the trial is set to begin in January.
Follow Samantha Hawkins on Twitter
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
