It's the taxpayer funded nation's Capitol. They have taxpayer funded surveillance cameras all over the place. Why won't they allow anyone, including defense attorneys to access it?
Something stinks here.
Quote:
UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The United States of America hereby respectfully moves the Court for the entry of a protective order governing the production of discovery by the parties in the above-captioned case. Hereinafter, any reference to the term "Defendant" refers to each individual defendant captioned above.
1. Defendant is charged via indictment with offenses related to crimes that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. In brief, on that date, as a Joint Session of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate convened to certify the vote of the Electoral College of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, members of a large crowd that had gathered outside forced entry into the U.S. Capitol, including by breaking windows and by assaulting members of law enforcement, as others in the crowd encouraged and assisted those acts. Scores of individuals entered the U.S. Capitol without authority to be there. As a result, the Joint Session and the entire official proceeding of the Congress was halted until the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department, and other law enforcement agencies from the city and surrounding region were able to clear the Capitol of hundreds of unlawful occupants and ensure the safety of elected officials. This event in its entirety is hereinafter referred to as the "Capitol Attack."
2. The investigation and prosecution of the Capitol Attack will likely be one of the largest in American history, both in terms of the number of defendants prosecuted and the nature and volume of the evidence. Over 300 individuals have been charged in connection with the Capitol Attack. The investigation continues and the government expects that at least one hundred additional individuals will be charged. While most of the cases have been brought against individual defendants, the government is also investigating conspiratorial activity that occurred prior to and on January 6, 2021. The spectrum of crimes charged and under investigation in connection with the Capitol Attack includes (but is not limited to) trespass, engaging in disruptive or violent conduct in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds, destruction of government property, theft of government property, assaults on federal and local police officers, firearms offenses, civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, possession and use of destructive devices, and conspiracy.
Quote:
5. Many of the above-described materials may contain sensitive information, such as (a) personal identity information as identified in Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as telephone numbers, email addresses, driver's license numbers, and similar unique identifying information; (b) information regarding the government's confidential sources; (c) information that may jeopardize witness security; (d) contact information for, photographs of, and private conversations with individuals that do not appear to be related to the criminal conduct in this case; (e) medical or mental health information, (f) sources and methods lawenforcement officials have used, and will continue to use, to investigate other criminal conduct related to the publicly filed charges; and (g) tax returns or tax information. Additional sensitive materials include surveillance camera footage from the U.S. Capitol Police's extensive system of cameras on U.S. Capitol grounds, see Attachment A (Declaration of Thomas A. DiBiase, General Counsel for the United States Capitol Police), and repair estimates obtained from the Architect of the Capitol that constitute procurement information.
Proposed order:Quote:
11. Counsel for defendant Stevens does not oppose the proposed protective order. Counsel for defendant McCaughey opposes the proposed protective order. WHEREFORE, to expedite the government's provision of discoverable materials, and to adequately protect the United States' legitimate interests, the government requests that pursuant to the Court's authority under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1), the Court enter the attached proposed order
LinkQuote:
1. Materials Subject to this Order. This Order governs materials provided by the United States at any stage of discovery during this case and which the United States has identified as either "Sensitive" or "Highly Sensitive." Examples of materials that the United States may designate as "Sensitive" or "Highly Sensitive" pursuant to this Order include but are not limited to:
a. Personal identity information as identified in Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as telephone numbers, email addresses, driver's license numbers, and similar unique identifying information;
b. Information regarding the government's confidential sources;
c. Information that may jeopardize witness security;
d. Contact information for, photographs of, and private conversations with individuals that do not appear to be related to the criminal conduct in this case;
e. Medical or mental health records;
f. Sources and methods law-enforcement officials have used, and will continue to use, to investigate other criminal conduct related to the publicly filed charges;
g. Surveillance camera footage from the U.S. Capitol Police's extensive system of cameras on U.S. Capitol grounds;
Quote:
Almost all the January 6 video seen by the public isn't from official government sources but by social media users and journalists on the scene. For example, the widely viewed footage of protestors occupying the Senate chamber was recorded by a New Yorker journalist.
But thousands of hours of real-time footage is in the hands of the Capitol Policeand that agency, along with government lawyers and federal judges, is using every legal trick possible to keep the trove hidden from the public even as clips are presented in court as evidence against hundreds of January 6 defendants.
According to an affidavit filed in March by Thomas DiBiase, the Capitol Police department's general counsel, the building is monitored 24/7 by an "extensive system of cameras" positioned both inside and outside the building as well as near other congressional offices on the grounds.
The system captured more than 14,000 hours of footage between noon and 8 p.m. on January 6; the archive was made available to two Democratic-controlled congressional committees, the FBI, and the D.C. Metropolitan Police department. (After a request by Congress, the agency reportedly handed over footage from the entire 24-hour period.)
Quote:
Capitol Police also produced selective clips for Democratic House impeachment managers to use in the trial against Donald Trump.
But Capitol Police argue that making all the tapes available to defense attorneys let alone to the American publiccould provoke future violence. "The Department has significant concerns with the release of any of its footage to defendants in the Capitol attack cases unless there are safeguards in place to prevent its copying and dissemination," DiBiase wrote March 17. "Our concern is that providing unfettered access to hours of extremely sensitive information to defendants who already have shown a desire to interfere with the democratic process will . . . [be] passed on to those who might wish to attack the Capitol again."
Quote:
The Justice Department, in numerous cases, is seeking protective orders to rigorously limit how surveillance video is handled by defense attorneys. Recordings have been deemed "highly sensitive" government material subject to onerous rules; the accused only have access to the evidence in a supervised setting. Clips cannot be copied, downloaded, shared, or reproduced in any fashion.
"Defense counsel may not provide a copy of Highly Sensitive materials to Defendant or permit Defendant to view such materials unsupervised by defense counsel or an attorney, investigator, paralegal, or support staff person employed by defense counsel," Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a protective order related to the conspiracy case against members of the Oath Keepers. "The parties agree that defense counsel or an attorney, investigator, paralegal, or support staff person employed by defense counsel, may supervise Defendant by allowing access to Highly Sensitive materials through a cloud-based delivery system that permits Defendant to view the materials but does not permit Defendant the ability to download."
Quote:
But defense attorneys and the media now are fighting the video blackout. During a detention hearing last month for the two men accused of spraying officer Brian Sicknickboth have been behind bars and denied bail since their arrests in Marchdefense lawyers objected to the government's use of "cherry-picked" video they couldn't see in its full context which, if examined, might contain exculpatory evidence.
Under pressure from a group of media outlets, the government finally released what it claims is the incriminating video showing the chemical spray "attack" against Sicknick. (It didn't.) The choppy video included recordings from several surveillance cameras, a few D.C. police officers, and a bystander.
Quote:
Journalists continue to be frustrated by the Justice Department's suppression tactics. In a plea last week to Beryl Howell, chief judge of the D.C. District Court handling all the January 6 cases, 14 news organizations asked for better access to video evidence presented in court. (Virtual court proceedings further help prosecutors keep the clips under wraps.)
"[T]he press and public have not been able to access these videos on the Court's electronic dockets," lawyers representing CNN, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal and others wrote in a May 3 letter. "Delayed access to these historic records shuts the public out of an important part of the administration of justice." The government, the lawyers told Howell, refuses to give a "substantive answer" as to why the video evidence isn't publicly available and listed several cases where surveillance footage was played in court but not otherwise accessible.
Quote:
The secret video archive of January 6 isn't the only recording under scrutiny. It's also unclear whether Capitol Police kept the footage from January 5. DiBiase said surveillance video is routinely deleted after 30 days; only a "very limited" number of clips from January 5 were given to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., the office handling the massive investigation.
It would be very convenient for the Capitol Policeno objective party in this saga since it launched the lie about Sicknick's deathto purge footage from January 5 so defense attorneys and the public cannot see what sort of activity took place the day before the "insurrection."
LinkQuote:
There's only one reason why the Justice Department wants to keep the footage under seal: it contradicts most if not all of the claims advanced by Democrats and the media over the past four months.
Something stinks here.
