Prosecutors and defendants in one of two multi-defendant prosecutions against alleged members of the Oath-Keepers militia have asked a federal judge to move the trial from the date it began on Tuesday. April, citing concerns about the number of findings related to the case.
Attorney for Donovan Ray Crowl, Sandra Parker, Bennie Parker, Laura Steele, Connie Meggsand William Isaacsalong with eight federal prosecutors, filed a request with a U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta on Tuesday, citing a discovery status report filed by prosecutors on Feb. 10.
“Given the unprecedented volume of documents the government is making available during the discovery process and the genuine need by all parties to be able to search and review these documents prior to trial, the purpose of of justice will be served by consistently substantially exceeding the interests of the public and the defendants in a expeditious trial,” the joint proposal said.
They will be brought to trial on April 19.
At a state conference on January 25, Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, resisted objections from defense attorneys to move the trial date to April.
“The date of this case will be upheld,” Mehta said at the time. “At some point, these cases have to go to trial… I’m getting ready to hear it in April and I think everyone else needs to speed up.”
However, lawyers now say the number of findings is simply too much to manage effectively.
“After the government submitted a report on the status of the findings, the parties agreed and agreed that the April hearing date cannot be extended. The case-by-case exploratory documents alone in this case make an April trial date difficult. The government provided more than two terabytes of discovery material just for this case. Because the defendants came forward to charge accomplices not only with each other but with the accused accused in Criminal Cases No. 22-cr-15 and 22-cr-14, as well as other subjects not charged The crime is mentioned in the discovery document, this is not a case where the defense can ignore those documents that they mainly apply to the other defendant. While some of these documents were provided to the defense near the start of this case, other documents were made available only recently because they were obtained later in the investigation. For example, Defendant James Beeks was arrested in late November (quickly after he was identified by law enforcement as the fourteenth and final member of the group to which these defendants entered the Capitol). , and the government is currently completing the review and discovery. evidence from several digital devices seized from Defendant Beeks upon arrest.
Additionally, as described in more detail in the government’s state of discovery report, the government is providing an unprecedented amount of material through its global discovery. This includes tens of thousands of hours of surveillance video, body-worn camera footage and public source video; tens of thousands of information and data from tricks are provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and local police departments; hundreds of reports of internal investigation into law enforcement on January 6, 2021; hundreds of thousands of FBI reports documenting the investigation of all those identified as having a role in the Capitol break-in; and data seized by legal process or consent from thousands of digital devices and other digital accounts of participants in the Capitol Breach. The government is providing this data due to the unique circumstances of this matter, i.e., this case includes hundreds of similar crimes committed simultaneously in the same location, where multiple defendants recorded their crimes and those of others around them. Since the defendants are better positioned to determine what evidence they believe can be excised and will help defend them, the government’s plan – providing the defense with all the data it may contain such information, but in a way that will facilitate finding, retrieving, organizing, and managing that information – continue to be reasonable and relevant. It is especially important in this case, where the government has been asked by the defense to identify and provide findings from other circumstances that the defense deems may be relevant to its preparation of the defense. “
Seventh co-defendant, James Beeksis not part of the record, as he is not scheduled to participate in the April 19 trial.
The Oath-holders are a large but loosely organized group of anti-government right-wing extremists. Anti-Defamation League. Nineteen alleged Oath-Keepers have been charged in at least two multi-defendant prosecutions; The indictment against members of the group alleges that on January 6, some of them approached the Capitol building during a military exercise known as the “stack formation” as is the crowd of Donald Trump Police supporters break through the blockade of the building trying to block the certificate of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. An indictment alleges that the group organized a “Quick Response Force“Ready to carry weapons by boat across the Potomac River at the direction of Trump.
Read the joint motion to continue, below.
[Images via FBI court filings.]
Is there a trick we should know? email@example.com
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-breach/oath-keepers-prosecutors-file-joint-motion-to-move-april-trial-date-in-major-jan-6-case/ Oath-keeper, prosecutor requests adjournment of Capitol violation trial