J20 protest trial latest: Anti-Trump activists found not guilty and avoid lengthy prison sentences

The six defendants facing decades in prison for protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration have been found not guilty, in a trial that sparked a national conversation on First Amendment rights in the age of Trump.

A Washington, DC jury cleared the defendants of all seven charges against them. The defendants were the first of nearly 200 people slated to stand trial for their involvement in the 20 January protests. Their trial is expected to set the precedent for how the remainder of the defendants will be prosecuted moving forward.

The six defendants all attended the Disrupt J20 march in Washington – an event that DC Metropolitan Police say eventually turned violent, resulting in some $100,000 in property destruction. In their opening arguments, however, the prosecution conceded they had no evidence of the six defendants engaging in any of the property destruction themselves.

Source

This is just coming out now so there's not really much in terms of details. I'll try to keep this thread updated as details emerge.

There's really no other way this could have ended. The only thing the prosecutor was ever able to prove is that these people were in the vicinity of the protest. They couldn't even prove these people were actually taking part in the protest.

It was clear during closing arguments that the prosecutor knew they had failed to prove their case. They outright told the jury to ignore the judge's instructions in regards to reasonable doubt.

I know a large part of ATS will probably hate this decision but this truly is a good thing. The 1st Amendment still means something.

This topic should be more popular than it is.

What would be very interesting is if it emerged that The President has interceded on the defendants behalf. In his position I would have done that.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254the prosecution conceded they had no evidence of the six defendants engaging in any of the property destruction themselves.

no evidence? not even witness testimony told by the arresting officers? if the officers didnt witness the individual commit destruction themselves, then WHY the # would they arrest them!

innocent until proven guilty,
no evidence, not even witness testimony from the arresting officer = innocent.
period.

a reply to: xuenchen

For once we agree on something.

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

The officers that testified ended up having to change their testimony multiple times under cross-examination.

Seriously!? A thread asking if Trump is the Second Coming because his father's middle name is Christ gets way more attention than a thread about one of the most important court cases in recent memory?

There's a reason people claim ATS has lost its way.

Another example of liberal's in office,they will break the law to prove their ignorant points,only one who suffers are the citizen's,ignorant self centered SOB's

a reply to: Oldtimer2

How does this have anything to do with liberals in office? The prosecutor flat out failed to prove their case and then proceeded to tell the jury that reasonable doubt doesn't matter.

Excellent thread. I believe in our 1st ammendment rights. However, I do not support property damage or violence.

a reply to: MrsAllen

And I think most will agree with you. This case was never about punishing those that actually committed crimes. It was a threat against those that choose to exercise their free speech.