The verdict in the January 6 riot trial, involving the leader of 'Cowboys for Trump', remains unchanged in a notable court decision.
This scenario pertains to a few instances that put the Justice Department's approach to prosecuting Capitol rioters to the test. The verdict in one of these cases, which was argued last December, has been eagerly anticipated.
This ruling further strengthens the security the Secret Service is allowed to provide, by clarifying the legal aspects surrounding trespassing in areas where authorities are providing protection.
As stated by DC Circuit Judge Nina Pillard in her opinion released on Tuesday, "The Secret Service’s authority to prohibit access to designated areas for the safety of its protectees does not rely on the trespasser's understanding."
The challenged law was contested by Couy Griffin, a New Mexico official associated with a group called Cowboys for Trump, who scaled a stone wall near the Capitol to reach the inauguration stage. Griffin was convicted of two misdemeanors, including trespassing, and was sentenced to 14 days in prison and a year of supervised release.
Judge Pillard wrote in the 2-1 opinion, "We will not endorse Griffin's viewpoint that the statute necessitates proof that he recognized the Capitol grounds were restricted at that time, specifically if a Secret Service agent was or would be temporarily present at the Capitol grounds." If we were to adopt Griffin's viewpoint, it would presumably hinder the Secret Service's ability to manage various threats.
It's likely that Griffin continues to contest his trespassing charge through additional appeals, potentially reaching the US Supreme Court, which has showed interest in reinterpreting the law related to the Capitol riot.
Griffin previously petitioned the Supreme Court to review a separate legal challenge after being removed from his position as a New Mexico county commissioner by a judge. The high court declined to hear his case seeking reinstatement.
There was no immediate response from Griffin's lawyer at the federal public defender service following CNN's request for comment.
One judge diverges in opinion
The panel of judges was divided, with Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissenting from the majority's opinion. Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Pillard, an Obama appointee, agreed in the majority decision.
In his dissent, Katsas argued that prosecutors should have been required to prove Griffin was aware of the gravity of the protected area he was trespassing and that Pence could be there in addition to proof that he knew he was crossing into a prohibited area.
"It goes without saying, a trespass that poses a threat to the President or Vice President's life or safety is more culpable than a simple trespass involving nothing more than entering a restricted area," Katsas wrote.
"Individuals who trespass into a restricted area without knowing that someone like the President or Vice President is present are less likely to pose a threat to these officials than individuals who knowingly trespass into an area restricted to protect them," the judge added.
Katsas pointed out that out of the 470 trespassing convictions of January 6 rioters that prosecutors have secured, trial court judges in DC have varied in their interpretations of how much these rioters were aware of Pence's presence at the Capitol.
The ongoing politics surrounding the Capitol rioters' prosecutions is further highlighted by the divided opinion of the judges in Couy Griffin's case. Even though Judge Katsas disagreed with the majority, he argued that prosecutors should prove awareness of the gravity of the protected area and the potential presence of officials like Vice President Pence.
