Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Jury finds first US Capitol riot defendant to go on trial guilty on all counts [View all]ShazzieB
(19,373 posts)I really don't. Remember, this guy is the first one of the rioters to go to trial. A lot of the ones who got slaps on the wrist probably had plea deals, where they pleaded guilty in exchange for a (relatively) lighter sentence.
Courts tend to like people who plead guilty and waive their right to a trial. Admitting wrongdoing and agreeing to face the music is looked on a lot more favorably than denying you did anything wrong in the face of mountains of evidence, as was the case here. If you read the NPR article linked in reply #24 (which I remmend, as it's very interesting), this dude flatly denied having a gun at the Capitol despite video showing him wearing a holster with a "shiny object" in it, AND he threatened to kill his son and daughter if they ratted him out (hence the obstruction of justice charges). And on and on. His defense was practically nonexistent and basically consisted of "I didn't do it!" (Again, this is all in the article.)
In addition to all of this, as the first Capitol insurectionist to go to trial, I think the judge is going to want to make an example of this dude, to send a clear message to others who, like him, are deluded enough to think going to trial is a good idea. Will he get the maximum sentence? I doubt it. But I think he'll get put away for a nice long time, the obstruction charges alone. Nobody else (so far) has been convicted of threatening to kill potential witnesses.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):