On January 20, 2017, black-clad demonstrators held an “anti-capitalist/anti-fascist group” march to protest the inauguration of Donald Trump. Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., charged more than 200 of them with rioting. While 21 defendants pleaded guilty, all other cases ended in acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals with prejudice. One reason for the fiasco was the discovery that federal prosecutors overseeing the case continued to withhold exculpatory evidence and repeatedly lied to judges and defense attorneys, according to recently filed disciplinary charges.
In a “statement of charges” filed last month with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ Commission on Professional Responsibility, disciplinary attorney Hamilton P. Fox III accused Jennifer Kerkhoff Muskens of Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens, who is now a federal prosecutor in Utah but previously worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, violated six rules of professional conduct while trying to convict “DisruptJ20” protesters, including many who did not participate in the destruction or Violent people. Fox noted that Muskens “knew that most of the defendants themselves did not commit acts of violence,” but “she argued that these defendants were still responsible for felony rioting and property destruction because they participated in a criminal conspiracy to use protest marches to further Promote violence and violent behavior”. The destruction that occurred. “
To support this theory, Muyskens showed a video of a DisruptJ20 planning meeting that was secretly recorded by an “agent” from Project Veritas. Negatively portray progressive and leftist organizations. Fox said that even though Muiskens “knew that Project Veritas was known for editing videos in misleading ways,” she initially withheld the source of the video, telling the court that “it didn’t matter who provided it.” Fox added that although Muiskens “knew that Project Veritas had missed and edited some of the footage” before its release, she “did not request or obtain the missing video or unedited footage from Project Veritas.”
Muskens and Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Detective Gregory Pemberton edited the meeting footage in a way that supported the prosecution’s case, and Muskens concealed the extent of those edits, Fox reported. Muyskens also withheld videos from Project Veritas’ other DisruptJ20 meetings that would have been helpful to the defense, pretending they didn’t exist, Fox said. She allegedly concealed the fact that Pemberton mistakenly identified one of the DisruptJ20 defendants as a woman who appeared in a video of the planning meeting when testifying to the grand jury.
The material excised by Muiskens and Pemberton included footage that could reveal the source of the video. They also edited a video of a phone call in which a Veritas infiltrator told a colleague, “I don’t think they know anything about what’s going on at the top.”
According to the 1963 Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland, due process requires prosecutors to share potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense. Fox said Muiskens violated that rule by deleting footage that might have helped rebut the prosecution’s case.
Fox wrote that the removed footage “shows that it was filmed as part of Veritas’ plan to infiltrate DisruptJ20, which tends to undermine the credibility and reliability of the government’s evidence.” “Furthermore, the agent’s post-meeting report indicated that some DisruptJ20 protest organizers had no knowledge of the plans or decisions being made by ‘higher ups.’ This lack of knowledge supports the non-violent defendant’s theory, which assumes that plans for the riot actually existed , then only a small group of people were involved and they knew nothing about it; or, if the agents were discussing a situation where protest organizers were unaware of Project Veritas, the edited footage would be exculpatory.
The video withheld by Muyskens contains evidence that, contrary to prosecutors’ claims, the DisruptJ20 protests were supposed to be peaceful. Fox explains that the videos “are exculpatory” “because they show that DisruptJ20 planning meetings were always about training and coaching protesters on how to engage in their unauthorized ‘actions,’ including anti-capitalist marches, as non-violent protests, Use nonviolent and de-escalation techniques to support the nonviolent defendant’s claim that their intent was simply to protest peacefully.
Fox noted that the unreleased footage also “shows Project Veritas agents discussing their infiltration of DisruptJ20, which supports the defense’s theory that Project Veritas conspired to blame DisruptJ20 for the misconduct of others.” “For example, unreleased footage shows Project Veritas staff discussing—forward Inauguration Protests – How They Provided Information to the FBI About DisruptJ20, “Outside Influencers” Could Be Violent, and How DisruptJ20 “Takes Responsibility” for Outsiders’ Wrongful Behavior Because the FBI “Says” That They Instigated .
Fox said Muiskens “erroneously stated in court that the government made only two redactions, both to redact the identities of the photographer and the undercover officer” and that “in addition to the two redactions, the defense also Same content”. As a government video. She “erroneously told the court that she had provided ‘all the footage of the day’ to defense counsel.”
According to Fox, “Pemberton falsely testified that Project Veritas produced only four of the film clips that were disclosed. [planning meeting video]” and “the only edit the government made was to combine the first three video clips into a single exhibit to be played at the trial.” “Revealing that they missed many other Project Veritas videos from the DisruptJ20 project meeting during the discovery process.”
Muyskens told the judge that Project Veritas “provided the unedited footage” at Pemberton’s request and “we posted the footage to the Discovery Portal.” Fox said the statements “were false and misleading.” Muyskens also “erroneously stated that in addition to modifying the identity and identity of Veritas project operators [the undercover officer]”The defense had the exact same video as us.” The judge “later found out [Muyskens] “It left a clear impression,” she said of what the Veritas project has produced.
Muiskens told another judge that “the government ‘provided the clips that we have'” and that “the government’s only edit was to combine three clips of the anti-capitalist ‘outbreak’ into a video exhibit for Trial. Fox said the statements were also “false and misleading.”
Muyskens ultimately “acknowledged that the government has additional unreleased Project Veritas videos from the DisruptJ20 planning meeting.” But she “mischaracterized them and falsely suggested they were irrelevant.”
Fox said Muiskens “repeated her false statements and material omissions” during the investigation into her conduct, involving video editing, withholding videos, suppressing “relevant information and evidence,” and failing to present to a grand jury Transcripts of mistaken identity defendants, etc. She also “made additional false statements and material omissions to misconstrue her conduct.” For example, she claimed that the unreleased videos were “irrelevant and did not discuss anti-capitalist marches.”
Fox said Muiskens’ conduct violated the District of Columbia’s rules of professional conduct in six ways:
1. She allegedly violated Rule 3.3(a) by “knowingly making false statements, providing false evidence, and failing to correct the material misrepresentations to the court.”
2. She allegedly violated Section 3.4 of Rule 3.4 by “impeding the defense’s access to evidence and altering or concealing evidence, or assisting others in doing so when she reasonably should have known that evidence had or might have been discovered; willfully violated the court’s direct An order to provide information in the Government’s possession without disclosing that no valid obligation exists and/or without reasonable efforts to comply with the defense’s discovery request;
3. It is alleged that she violated two parts of Rule 3.8, “deliberately avoiding pursuing evidence and information because it might prejudice the prosecution’s case or assisting the defence; and deliberately failing to provide evidence and information upon request and when using the evidence and information” Defense discloses information.” Evidence and information that the defense believes is reasonably practicable and that she knows or reasonably ought to know will tend to negate the defendant’s guilt or mitigate his guilt. “
4. It is alleged that she violated Rule 8.4(a) by “knowingly assisting or inducing others to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and/or doing so through the conduct of others.”
5. She allegedly violated Rule 8.4(c) by “engaging in reckless or willful conduct that was dishonest, misrepresentative, deceptive, and deceptive and misled the grand jury, the defense, the court, the government, and the disciplinary authorities about
Evidence in the possession of the government and actions of the government.
6. She allegedly violated Rule 8.4(d) by “engaging in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice.”
Possible sanctions against the Muiskens range from “temporary revocation of their law licenses to full disbarment.” washington city paper notes. Washington post According to reports, Muiskens’ attorney did not respond to a request for comment, and “Pemberton also did not respond to the investigation.” The U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Washington, D.C., and Utah “declined to comment.” The same goes for the police department, which “has not disclosed whether the department has opened an investigation into Pemberton, who is now the president of the police union.”
The failed prosecution and disciplinary charges against Muiskens were not the only embarrassments to come from the Inauguration Day parade. 2021, postal noted that “the D.C. government has agreed to pay $1.6 million to resolve two lawsuits filed by protesters” who argued that the police response to the DisruptJ20 march violated their First Amendment rights.
“It is significant that the school district chose to settle rather than defend MPD’s clearly unconstitutional actions in court,” Jeffrey Light, one of the attorneys for the protesters, said when the settlement was announced. DC Citizen Liberty Alliance Legal Director Scott Michelman added, “MPD’s unconstitutional vigilantism and excessive use of force, including the use of chemical weapons, not only harmed our clients’ bodies but also chilled their rhetoric.
