Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lucian K. Truscott IV's avatar

Correction: in sixth graf, 2001 for 2021. Ooops. Too many twos and ones and zeros

Richard Turnbull, J.D.'s avatar

All RIGHT! We need you LKTIV, and here's some good news from January 6 litigation posted just yesterday, it's a hammering down on the seditious insurrectionists they never expected, that's for sure:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/23-3023/23-3023-2024-01-05.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024-01-06-us-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit-5555f8b581&utm_content=text-case-title-1

Justia Opinion Summary

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Russell Alford, who was a participant in the Capitol protest on January 6, 2021, appealed his convictions and sentence for four misdemeanors. The misdemeanors were related to his unauthorized entry and conduct within the U.S. Capitol. Although Alford's behavior while in the Capitol was neither violent nor destructive, he was convicted for his role in disrupting the Congress's electoral certification and endangering public safety.

Alford raised two issues in his appeal: the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for disorderly or disruptive conduct and the reasonableness of his twelve-month sentence. The court affirmed his convictions, noting that a jury could rationally conclude that his unauthorized presence as part of a mob contributed to the disruption of the Congress's proceedings. The court also affirmed his sentence, stating that the district court was within its discretion in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence after considering the circumstances.

The case underscores that disorderly or disruptive conduct, as defined by relevant statutes, can include non-violent and non-destructive actions if they are likely to endanger public safety or create a public disturbance. Even passive conduct can be deemed disorderly or disruptive, depending on the context. The court also emphasized that sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct are not inherently unreasonable, especially when the defendant's conduct during trial or other factors may justify a greater sentence.

****** Full text of the judgment in downloadable PDF is there, too, collect them all, amaze your friends and stun and confuse the usual suspects, too!

122 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?