A federal appeals court has issued a significant ruling stating that participants in the January 6 Capitol riot can be found guilty of “disorderly” or “disruptive” conduct even if they were not personally violent or destructive. This decision is seen as a victory for the Justice Department, which has charged hundreds of defendants with misdemeanor counts of disorderly and disruptive conduct, a common charge applied to members of the Capitol mob.
The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously determined that the actions of the mob should be evaluated based on the circumstances of the day, including the individuals’ awareness of the chaos around them. The court emphasized that even passive, quiet, and nonviolent conduct can be deemed disorderly, citing Supreme Court precedent on sit-ins or protests that block traffic.
Many Jan. 6 defendants have argued that their actions were benign, though they acknowledge they should not have entered the Capitol building. Prosecutors, however, contend that the sheer numbers of the mob provided cover for more destructive actors and increased pressure on law enforcement attempting to regain control of the Capitol.
The court’s decision upholds the conviction of Jan. 6 defendant Russell Alford, who was found guilty of four misdemeanors in 2022. Alford, presenting himself as a passive observer, entered the Capitol when not permitted to do so. The court emphasized that Alford’s actions were not viewed in isolation, considering the overall events of that day.
The ruling also confirmed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision to sentence Alford to a year in prison, rejecting his argument that the term was unreasonably lengthy. Alford, unlike others who pleaded guilty, opted for a trial, forfeiting the opportunity for a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court found that Chutkan conscientiously considered all legally required factors when determining Alford’s sentence.
The panel of judges included appointees from both Republican and Democratic administrations, adding to the impartiality of the decision. This ruling is expected to impact other cases involving disorderly conduct charges related to the January 6 events.
COMMENTS