Appeals court upholds Jan. 6 defendant’s trespassing conviction

A federal appeals court upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of trespassing on Capitol grounds Jan. 6, 2021. It’s an important ruling because the trespassing statute was used to charge more than 1,400 people involved in the riot.

The decision was made by a three-judge panel. Two of the judges upheld the conviction, the third judge said he would have vacated the conviction and sent it back to a lower court for further findings and proceedings.

The federal law at the heart of this case is meant to help protect the president and other national leaders from danger, including assassination and kidnapping. It gives the Secret Service the authority to prevent unauthorized individuals from entering safety zones where those who require protection are temporarily visiting. 

The decision states that Couy Griffin knowingly intruded into an area of the U.S. Capitol that was restricted for the protection of Vice President Mike Pence. Griffin argued that a person only breaks the statute if they know the restriction is to safeguard a Secret Service protectee. The judges ruled that an individual knowingly breaching the restricted area suffices, even without knowing the basis of the restriction.

According to court documents, Griffin breached the perimeter and remained in the restricted area for approximately two hours, even as Capitol Police officers struggled to control the mob that broke into the building. Griffin went to the Capitol that day to try to stop the certification of the election. 

The dissenting judge’s reasoning was based on the fact that Griffin said he did not know the vice president was still on the premises, something the judge called an “essential element” to the statute. 

Judge Gregory Katsass wrote, “Trespassers unaware that someone like the President or Vice President is present are much less likely to pose a threat to those officials than are individuals who knowingly trespass into an area restricted to protect them.” 

This case could go up to the Supreme Court for an appeal. The high court already ruled in June that defendants charged with obstructing an official proceeding can only be prosecuted if they tampered with physical records. That statute was used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants.