The United States Supreme Court reportedly signaled that they are considering granting Russell Alford, one of the few J6 defendants to refuse a plea deal, his petition for writ of certiorari, a move that only happens for roughly 1% of cases brought to SCOTUS. Alford is one of the 75 January 6 defendants who joined The Gateway Pundit in our official request to RINO Speaker McCarthy last year for the government's January 6 footage.
Despite walking into the Capitol for just 13 minutes on January 6, where "He mostly stood to the side and observed" and "Filmed protestors chanting," then leaving, according to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Alford was given the maximum sentence for four crimes, including Remaining in a restricted building, Disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building, Disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Capitol Building and parading, and Demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol Building.
Alford is appealing the ruling from the trial court and Appeals Court that "Passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly." Though the Supreme Court may not be able to help Alford in his other charges of for "Remaining" and "Demonstrating" in the Capitol, this could undermine the convictions of thousands of peaceful protesters who were charged with disorderly conduct.
The court added that Alford left within three minutes of police telling the crowd to leave: Police arrived within about ten minutes of Alford's entry and began physically and verbally directing the crowd back out through the Upper House Door.
Not disorderly; disorderly Alford appealed his convictions on the two charges requiring the government to prove "Disorderly or disruptive conduct." The trial court refused Alford's motion to acquit on those charges, despite the lack of any evidence of such conduct, arguing that he should be held guilty on account of the actions of the other protestors: Mr. Alford's mere presence inside the Capitol disturbed the public peace or undermined public safety" and that "his presence was an aspect of the disorder and disruption of the Capitol.
High Court may help others Should the nation's highest court rule that such peaceful behavior as Alford's cannot be the basis for a disorderly conduct conviction, it may not actually benefit Alford, as his two convictions for "Remaining" and "Demonstrating" in the Capital would still stand and for each he was sentenced to the maximum prison time, as mentioned above, to run concurrently.
Since the maximum sentence for the charge of merely remaining in a restricted building is one year, even vacating the two disorderly charges would still leave Alford facing a year in prison, though he could argue that, without the disorderly charges, one year is excessive for trespassing.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/rare-move-scotus-justices-signal-they-may-grant/
No comments:
Post a Comment