CryptoPolyTech.com
Crypto, Politics, Tech, Gaming & World News.

Barnett’s lawyers want new trial | CPT PPP Coverage

 | cutline • press clip • news of the day |

Cryptopolytech (CPT) Public Press Pass (PPP)
News of the Day COVERAGE

200000048 – World Newser
•| #People |•| #World |•| #Online |•| #Media |•| #Outlet |

View more Headlines & Breaking News here, as covered by cryptopolytech.com


Barnett’s lawyers want new trial appeared on www.nwaonline.com by Arkansas Online.

Richard “Bigo” Barnett of Gravette should be granted a new trial because he and the jury that convicted him weren’t provided with a legal definition of “corruptly” as it pertains to 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2), his attorneys wrote in a federal court filing in the District of Columbia on Friday.

That word is in one of eight charges that a jury in Washington, D.C., found Barnett guilty of after a two-week trial in January.

Barnett was a “peaceful protester” who got swept into the U.S. Capitol by the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Barnett’s court testimony and his attorneys.

On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a lower court decision dismissing 18 U.S. 1512(c)(2) in the cases of three Jan. 6 defendants who had assaulted police officers.

18 U.S.C. 1512 reads: “(c) Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

“(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

But the appeals court failed to offer a precise definition for the word “corruptly,” and the definition remains unresolved, according to Friday’s filing from Barnett’s attorneys, Jonathan Gross of Baltimore and Bradford Geyer of Cinnaminson, N.J.

The appeals court ruling in United States v. Joseph W. Fischer also didn’t address non-violent protesters like Barnett, according to his attorneys.

“The issue as it relates to Mr. Barnett is relevant because, as opposed to Fischer, Barnett was a peaceful protester and therefore the word ‘corruptly’ requires a precise definition,” according to Barnett’s attorneys.

The majority ruling in the Fischer decision implies that the criminal intent for section 1512(c)(2) must include “extreme conduct” like assaulting a police officer, but it would not apply to peaceful protesters, according to Barnett’s attorneys.

“The majority opinion expressly stated that conduct like Mr. Barnett’s was ‘not before the court,’ and implied that if it had been, Section 1512(c)(2) would not have applied and the charge would have been dismissed,” according to Friday’s filing.

“While the Appellate Court overturned the dismissal, its reasoning is grounds to dismiss the charges against Mr. Barnett,” according to his attorneys.

Barnett required the proper definition of the word to be able to prepare a proper defense for the “corrupt element” of the charge, they wrote.

While in the Capitol, Barnett found his way to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s office suite and posed for photographs with his foot on the desk of a Pelosi staffer.

During jury selection for Barnett’s trial, several potential jurors said they had seen that photograph, which was widely circulated by news media.

“Without clarity as to the definition of ‘corruptly’ the jury was left to conclude that it meant any ‘wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil’ act,” according to Barnett’s attorneys. “This is especially problematic in Mr. Barnett’s case because during voir dire several potential jurors admitted to having seen the famous picture of Mr. Barnett with his feet on a desk belonging to a staffer of Nancy Pelosi, and when asked, described their subjective impressions of Mr. Barnett’s behavior in a manner that would fit a possible definition of ‘corruptly.’

“Accordingly, any juror who made such statements had already decided Mr. Barnett’s guilt just from seeing the picture and should have been struck for cause.”

Barnett faced enhanced charges for carrying a stun gun into the Capitol. His sentencing is scheduled for May 24. He faces a maximum penalty of 47 years in prison.

FEATURED ‘News of the Day’, as reported by public domain newswires.

Related Posts
Find more, like the above, right here on Cryptopolytech.com by following our extensive quiclick links appearing on images or [NEWSer CHEWSer].
View ALL Headlines & Breaking News here.

Source Information (if available)

This article originally appeared on www.nwaonline.com by Arkansas Online – sharing via newswires in the public domain, repeatedly. News articles have become eerily similar to manufacturer descriptions.

We will happily entertain any content removal requests, simply reach out to us. In the interim, please perform due diligence and place any content you deem “privileged” behind a subscription and/or paywall.

CPT (CryptoPolyTech) PPP (Public Press Pass) Coverage features stories and headlines you may not otherwise see due to the manipulation of mass media.

We compile ‘news of the day’ content in an unbiased manner and contextually classify it to promote the growth of knowledge by sharing it just like Barnett’s lawyers want new trial

First to share? If share image does not populate, please close the share box & re-open or reload page to load the image, Thanks!

You might also like