Kevin McCarthy gave to Tucker Carlson, and only Tucker Carlson, exclusive access to Capitol video from January 6th. On March 6 of this year Carlson aired his cherry picked pieces of the video, with inflammatory comment falsely suggesting that what happened on J6 was largely peaceful, and any violence was the produce of FBI plants or Antifa.
Jacob Chansley, aka the “Horns Guy,” was charged with about half dozen offenses that day. He eventually pled guilty to one of them, obstruction of an official proceeding, in exchange for the other charges being dropped. He was sentenced to 41 months in prison, the lowest advised under the sentencing guidelines, as he impressed the court with his contrition. He has been released, but remains under probation and post release supervision.
Inspired by Tucker Carlson’s video, Chansley’s new attorney submitted a motion to have his conviction reversed. He argued that Tucker provided new evidence showing his client acting peacefully and respectfully towards police. Chansley’s attorneys claimed prosecutors violated the “Brady Rule,” which requires turning over all potentially exculpatory evidence to defense counsel.
Today, Reagan appointed Judge Royce Lamberth denied that request for three reasons:
1. It was not new evidence. There was no Brady Rule violation. Chansley’s counsel was given access to the videos even though they were not publicly released.
2. They were not exculpatory. In context the videos did nothing to suggest that Chansley did not commit the crime for which he pled guilty.
3. The evidence is abundant and clear that Chansley did commit the crime for which he pled guilty.
Judge Lamberth pointed out that new evidence had come out since Chansley’s sentencing that actually cast his conduct in a worse light and that at a resentencing today Chansley might actually do worse.
Near the end of the decision Judge Lamberth addressed Tucker Carlson’s conduct in the manner, clearly viewing it as dishonest and irresponsible and similar to the lies that sparked the attack on the Capitol.
Finally, the Court would be remiss if it did not address the ill-advised television program of March 6, 2023. Not only was the broadcast replete with misstatements and misrepresentations regarding the events of January 6, 2021 too numerous to count, the host explicitly questioned the integrity of this Court-not to mention the legitimacy of the entire U.S. criminal justice system with inflammatory characterizations of cherry-picked videos stripped of their proper context. In so doing, he called on his followers to “reject the evidence of [their] eyes and ears,” language resembling the destructive, misguided rhetoric that fueled the events of January 6 in the first place. The Court finds it alarming that the host’s viewers throughout the nation so readily heeded his command. But this Court cannot and will not reject the evidence before it. Nor should the public. Members of the public who are concerned about the evidence presented in Mr. Chansley’s case and others like may view the public docket and even attend court proceedings in these cases.Those of us who have presided over dozens of cases arising from, listened to hundreds of hours of testimony describing, and reviewed thousands of pages of briefing about the attack on our democracy of January 6 know all too well that neither the events of that day nor any particular defendant’s involvement can be fully captured in a seconds-long video carelessly, or perhaps even cynically, aired in a television segment or attached to a tweet.
Of course, Tucker Carlson is not accused of a crime and the judge does not suggest he can be based on this conduct. That does not quite mean that this language will be completely without consequence for Tucker Carlson. Those suing him for defamation will likely use this language to argue that at least one judge has taken already found that Tucker Carlson is a dishonest and misleading reporter.
