Although most Capitol breach trials and sentences are going forward, one was postponed Thursday after the defendant pointed to President-elect Donald Trump’s promises to pardon such defendants or otherwise end their prosecutions, the Washington Post reports. Other judges have continued to schedule them into the new year. U.S. prosecutors have argued that courts should proceed as they would in prosecuting any crime, citing “societal interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice.” But over the Justice Department’s objection, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras on Thursday appeared to acknowledge the possibility that the case before him might be cut short, granting a request from defendant William Pope to put off a scheduled Dec. 2 trial until at least February, four years after he was first charged. Contreras, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, is the first judge to postpone a Jan. 6-related trial scheduled for the post-election transition period. The move could spare court resources and potential jurors’ time, while allowing the picture to become clearer after Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
Pope, who is facing a felony rioting charge and other counts of misdemeanor trespassing and disorderly conduct, has peppered the court with dozens of objections to government exhibits, motions to suppress evidence and a proposed 60-question survey for prospective jurors. “The American people gave President Trump a mandate to carry out the agenda he campaigned on, which includes ending the January 6 prosecutions and pardoning those who exercised First Amendment rights at the Capitol,” Pope wrote the court in asking for a delay. “This outcome and new mandate from the people justifies my trial being continued into the next administration.” Also on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, set an April 15 trial date for three defendants charged with misdemeanor trespassing and disorderly conduct counts in the Capitol, after a prosecutor on the case acknowledged she did not know if the case would go forward, said Elita Amato, an attorney for one of the defendants.
Comments