T1B

Federal prosecutors on Friday dismissed rioting charges against all remaining defendants arrested after destructive Inauguration Day protests in the nation’s capital, bringing to a close a controversial case that led to allegations of government overreach.

Prosecutors began filing paperwork Friday afternoon to formally drop the cases against 39 people who had been awaiting trial.

The vandalism of downtown businesses on the day President Trump was sworn in stretched more than 16 blocks as part of a disturbance called DisruptJ20. Members of a large group of protesters set small fires and used bricks and crowbars to smash storefronts.

In all, 234 people were arrested and charged with rioting. Of them, 21 defendants pleaded guilty before trial. But prosecutors had been unable to secure convictions at trial against others in the group.

Defense attorneys have long contended that prosecutors went too far in pursuing cases against more than 200 people. They argued that their clients were not rioting, but were swept up in the arrests while peacefully protesting.

Lacy MacAuley, one of the organizers of the DisruptJ20 Inauguration Day protests, said she celebrated the decision to end the prosecutions. She said the defendants have “suffered” more than a year of angst associated with the arrests, forcing many of them to put their lives on hold as they waited for outcomes in the criminal cases.

“How do you plan for your job and family and personal life when you are facing decades in prison?” MacAuley said.

[Government says it is dropping most remaining Inauguration Day rioting cases]

After the first six defendants to go to trial were acquitted late last year, prosecutors dropped charges against more than 150 others, saying they were unable to prove those people planned or participated in protests with the aim of causing damage. Charges against several additional defendants were dropped after D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin found that the U.S. Attorney’s Office failed to turn over some video evidence to the defense.

At a second trial involving another handful of defendants, jurors either acquitted them or were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Jurors in the two cases that went to trial said afterward that the government couldn’t prove which of the people in the chaotic crowd were the vandals. Over time, prosecutors dismissed more of the cases, and others had been set for trial.

Jessie K. Liu, U.S. attorney for the District, declined to comment on the decision. In a statement from her office, prosecutors noted that 21 of the people arrested have admitted guilt but said “in light of the results in the cases brought to trial” they had made the decision to halt the cases.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia believes that the evidence shows that a riot occurred on January 20, 2017, during which more than $100,000 in damage was caused to numerous public and private properties,” the statement read. “The destruction that occurred during these criminal acts was in sharp contrast to the peaceful demonstrations and gatherings that took place over the Inauguration weekend in the District of Columbia, and created a danger for all who were nearby.”

[New round of Inauguration Day rioting case dismissals]

Prosecutors had contended that the rioters blended in with protesters by using “black-bloc” tactics, wearing dark clothes and hiding their faces with masks and goggles so it would be harder for authorities to identify them while they participated in violence.

“They overreached in terms of their legal theory,” said Mark Goldstone, a D.C. defense attorney who represented two defendants, both of whose cases were dismissed. “That a person is responsible criminally for any destruction and violence incurred by someone in the same vicinity because of the clothes they wore — and because of that, a person is facing 70 years in jail because of someone else’s actions — that is absolutely preposterous.”

“It was a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ resources,” Goldstone said. “They spent way more in prosecution than the financial damages that were caused.”

Left Seater wrote:All of those businesses that had their storefronts smashed and business disrupted, not to mention the coin they spent and lost out on prolly aren’t happy.

Completely unsurprising you would cheer these criminals who actually did this damage walking.

Left Seater wrote:All of those businesses that had their storefronts smashed and business disrupted, not to mention the coin they spent and lost out on prolly aren’t happy.

Completely unsurprising you would cheer these criminals who actually did this damage walking.

Derron wrote: But you can bet he is too much of a chicken shit little bitch to get out there and throw rocks and burn shit with them. Might get his ass kicked by the cops. Some of their filthy ilk did over a million dollars in damage at one car dealer alone in Portland in 2016.

Screw_Michigan wrote:
The point is the feds overcharged a bunch of peaceful protesters and journalists. 200 or so. I know you really don't give a shit about the first amendment but the feds were way out of line. This is justice.

Left Seater wrote:

You can’t prove that those protesters were peaceful.

Mikey wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

You can’t prove that those protesters were peaceful.

Seems to me that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution.

Left Seater wrote:
You can’t prove that those protesters were peaceful. In reading your link, juries couldn’t be sure either so they all walked. That isn’t justice, it is hiding behind the mob

Mikey wrote:Look at you, big bad Suckaholic.

Nobody talks tougher than you. I'll bet you're a huge fucking pussy in "real" life. If you actually saw cops doing what you advocate you'd probably lose your lunch on the spot.

Left Seater wrote:
You can’t prove that those protesters were peaceful.