Unites States v. Worrell

UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHRISTOPHER WORRELL, Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cr-00292-RCL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

June 9, 2021

* REDACTED*

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After defendant Christopher Worrell was arrested on charges stemming from his participation in the January 6, 2021 breach of the United States Capitol, Chief Judge Howell issued an order detaining him pending trial. ECF No. 13. Defendant moved for emergency reconsideration of that order on the basis of, among other things, the government's treatment of his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and his risk of contracting a severe COVID-19 infection. See ECF No. 16-1. Chief Judge Howell denied that motion, and the Circuit affirmed. United States v. Worrell, No. 21-3020, 2021 WL 2010795 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 2021). The case was later transferred to the undersigned. Defendant then filed the present motion—his second emergency motion for reconsideration—again arguing that inadequate medical treatment for his lymphoma and the risk posed to him by COVID-19 are reasons to reconsider the previous detention order. ECF No. 47-1. After the government filed an opposition, ECF No. 49, the Court held a hearing on the motion at which the defendant testified. Min. Entry 5/4/2021. In response to this Court's Order, the government provided supplemental briefing, ECF No. 60, to which defendant replied, ECF No. 64.

Upon consideration of the parties' filings, ECF Nos. 47, 49, 60, 64, the arguments set forth at the hearing, and the underlying record, the Court finds that there are no previously unknown facts having a "material bearing" on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of others and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Nor has defendant met his burden to show that there is a "compelling reason" for release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). Thus, for the reasons explained below, the Court will DENY defendant's emergency motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 47.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

The government has proffered the following evidence in its filings opposing defendant's motion for pretrial release and defendant's motions for reconsideration of the order detaining him pending trial. See ECF Nos. 9, 19, 49, 60.

At approximately 1:00 P.M. on January 6, 2021, a joint session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College vote count for the 2020 Presidential Election. ECF No. 9 at 6. As elected members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives met in separate chambers inside the U.S. Capitol building, a large crowd gathered outside. Id. at 7. U.S. Capitol Police Officers, as well as temporary and permanent security barriers, stood between the crowd and the Capitol. Id.

Capitol Police were unable to maintain these barriers. Id. Between 1:00 and 2:00 P.M., individuals from the crowd overwhelmed police barriers and barricades around the outside perimeter of the U.S. Capitol grounds. Id. at 10. As the riotous crowd surged to the steps of the Capitol building, a single line of law enforcement attempted to hold back the crowd from the entrances to the building's interior. Id. Over the next half hour, members of the crowd exchanged blows with, threw objects at, and pepper sprayed the officers attempting to hold back the crowd. Id. Others grabbed and carried away law enforcement barriers—exposing the officers to the crowd. Id.

At this precarious moment, defendant positioned himself next to a wooden stairway on the side of the Capitol plaza, undipped a canister of pepper-spray gel from his tactical vest, and discharged a stream of pepper-spray gel toward the law enforcement officers positioned at the base of the steps. Id. at 10-11. The moment was captured by a photographer and submitted in the government's filings. Id.

Around 2:00 P.M., the mob forced its way past officers and into the Capitol building. Id. As they did so, they broke windows and assaulted members of the Capitol Police. Id. When the mob broke into the building, Congressional members and then-Vice President Pence were forced to evacuate. Id.

Although defendant was not one of the rioters who breached the Capitol building, defendant was part of the mob that, during the time officers struggled to keep the crowd from advancing between 1:00 and 2:00 P.M., engaged in attacks on the Capitol Police. Id.

Defendant is an avowed member of the Proud Boys organization. Id. at 3-4. He was arrested wearing a shirt with the words "Proud Boys" emblazoned on it, and law enforcement located in his house numerous shirts, patches, and challenge coins featuring the Proud Boys colors, logos, insignia, or specific Proud Boys chapters. Id. at 4. The government also proffered pictures and videos showing defendant wearing Proud Boys apparel or colors. Id.

According to defendant's live-in girlfriend, on January 6, 2021, she and defendant traveled to Washington D.C. with other Proud Boys in vans paid for by another individual. Id. at 8. They stayed in hotel rooms paid for by another individual. Id. Defendant and other Proud Boys used radio-communication devices on January 6, and he marched to the Capitol wearing tactical gear, prepared for confrontation. Id.

B. Defendant's Conduct After the Capitol Riot and Subsequent Arrest

On January 18, 2021 the FBI conducted a voluntary interview with defendant. ECF No. 9 at 12. A tip notified the FBI that defendant had posted a video on his Facebook page showing him at the Capitol issuing commands to other rioters. Id. at 12.¹ In his interview, defendant admitted that he was at the Capitol, but denied any wrongdoing and specifically denied entering the Capitol building. Id.

On March 12, 2021, the FBI went to defendant's residence to arrest him incident to the execution of a search warrant. Id. at 13. But defendant was away camping. Id. Over the phone, an FBI agent instructed defendant to turn himself in to the nearest FBI field office in Sarasota, Florida. Id. Defendant refused and stated that he would turn himself in at his residence, which was several hours away. Id. For public-safety reasons, the FBI declined to force defendant to turn himself in at Sarasota. Id.

While defendant was being arrested at his residence, he told law enforcement that he knew who alerted the FBI to his activities, offering a particular individual's name. Id. He also mentioned that he was upset at a particular Twitter user who had exposed his identity online. Id. Defendant said something to the effect of, if he ever found that person, the FBI would "be coming for [him] again." Id.

In its most recent filing, the government proffered several more of defendant's statements from his Facebook page. For example, on January 18, 2021 (the day defendant was interviewed by the FBI) he told one Facebook user:

Worrell: Got a visit from FBI an hour ago

...

Worrell: I just put a troll post out Believe I know who rattedUser: Feds have been going over every vid with a fine tooth comb though. They may have just ID'd you from public vids

Worrell: [Redacted] . . . . We shall see Got apian

User: Forget him for now, he's irrelevant. ...

Worrell: I am 99.9 I know who called.

ECF No. 60-2 at 12. In a public post that same day, he wrote, "SO WHOMEVER [sic] CALLED THE 'FEDS' ON ME REST ASSURED I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS SOON!! The best part is you have NOTHING accept [sic] empty accusations!! You are the piece of shit I knew you were!!" Id. He then responded to several comments concerning this person, noting in one, "It's a simple case of a butt hurt pu**y ass bitch that thought they could F**k with someone with some dumb bullshit!! They are about to get educated in 'real life.'" Id.

C. Procedural History

1. Chief Judge Howell's Order Of Detention

On March 19, Chief Judge Howell issued an order detaining defendant pending trial. ECF No. 13. Chief Judge Howell first found that the government could seek pretrial detention because defendant's charged conduct involved a felony and the use of a dangerous weapon. ECF No. 27 at 62, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E). Chief Judge Howell then found that each of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) supported defendant's detention. She concluded that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of others and the community. ECF No. 13 at 2. Her analysis is briefly summarized in the following discussion.

First, Chief Judge Howell found that the nature and circumstances of the offense weighed "heavily" in favor of detention. Id. at 5. Defendant was charged with four felonies stemming from the Capitol Riot, in which his participation was "planned, calculated, and intentional." Id.Defendant assembled with other Proud Boys and was equipped with a tactical vest, pepper spray, and a radio-communications device. Id. And at the Capitol, "[d]efendant discharged pepper spray gel directed at a thin police line keeping the rioters from entering the Capitol via the West Plaza." Id. Second, the weight of the evidence—which includes photos and videos clips of defendant at the Capitol—weighed strongly in favor detention. Id. at 6. Third, defendant's history and characteristics also weighed in favor of detention. Id. at 6-7. Here, defendant was previously arrested for impersonating a police officer, which involved "intimidating conduct towards a total stranger in service of taking the law into his own hands." Id. at 7. Defendant's initial refusal to turn himself in, and his statements during his arrest concerning others who exposed or reported him to the FBI, also "raise[d] serious and troubling signals about defendant's willingness . . . to not intimidate or threaten any potential witnesses." Id. at 7. Finally, all of these circumstances "taken together amplify concern that defendant will not adhere to a court order and that no condition or conditions will assure the safety of the community, potential witnesses, and, in particular, those who aided...