Jan 6 Defendant Cites Tucker Tapes, Demands Mistrial (Or More) Due To DOJ Malfeasance
What he really wants is for his case to be dismissed with prejudice -- and with good reason
What he really wants is for his case to be dismissed with prejudice — and with good reason.
The DOJ’s obvious violation of the Constitutional rights of other defendants like Jacob Chansley, gives plausible justification for other defendants to claim that their rights have been similarly violated.
You may or may not be familiar with the case of Dominic Pezzola (44, of Rochester) but he is one of the men arrested just days after what had begun as a peaceful rally on the sixth of January devolved into a lawless riot making a mess of the Capitol building.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
Here’s how the press has characterized his case.
Pezzola, also known as Spaz, Spazzo and Spazzolini, was first arrested Jan. 15, 2021, and charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property and restricted buildings or grounds. He has been identified as a former Marine who went to The Aquinas Institute of Rochester, a private high school; images showed him breaking a window at the U.S. Capitol with a police riot shield, and then smoking a cigar inside the Capitol building.
Pezzola, who has now been in jail for more than a year, was also charged with conspiracy in a separate case, along with fellow Proud Boys member William Pepe. When Pezzola was arrested, FBI agents found a thumb drive with hundreds of documents that had bomb-making and do-it-yourself gun making instructions, according to documents filed in federal court last year. — Syracuse
Motion to dismiss in the Jan 6th proud boys trial:
"Defendant Pezzola's motion for dismissal with prejudice regarding recent revelations on Tucker Carlson and associated testimony and the discovery of massive Brady and Jencks violations and violations of due process and the… https://t.co/ZAqUgZZykZ pic.twitter.com/syIAV1urOW— Natalie F Danelishen (@Chesschick01) March 9, 2023
Here is that same attachment with the more interesting words and phrases marked up so they stand out better.
Why would the lawyer in a case where specific cases of criminal vandalism are alleged against against the client — now augmented by conspiracy charges — be so bold as to demand that this case be dismissed with prejudice?
He saw Tucker’s footage of exculpatory video. What else did Tucker show? He interviewed Albert Watkins, the lawyer for the guy sitting in prison with a 41-month prison sentence.
As you can see in the video above, his lawyer had NEVER seen these videos that had literally been in the DOJ’s possession from Day One, despite the legal obligation the DOJ had to make all exculpatory material available to the accused.
Cited Sources:
