(Abdul–Rahman Oladimeji Bello, Headline USA) Following the release of new footage from Jan. 6, 2021, numerous defendants accused of crimes related to that day have begun to request trial delays.
The Epoch Times reported that the defendants said holding the trials at the already-decided time would be unfair. This is because they could possibly find new evidence from the newly acquired 41,000 hours of security footage.
Shane Jenkins was one of the defendants who filed a motion to delay his trial after the new footage disclosure. In the motion, Dennis Boyle, his attorney, wrote, “Mr Jenkins requests that his trial currently set to begin on March 21, 2023, be moved so defense counsel can review the additional discovery.”
This request came after the House of Representatives declared that any defendant interested in seeing the video would be granted access.
“The request for additional time is necessary to adequately and diligently review all discovery pertaining to Mr. Jenkins and to determine whether any video contains relevant and material information pertaining to Mr. Jenkins’ defense,” Boyle said. “Video evidence depicting Mr. Jenkins would constitute both exculpatory and material evidence, which would require disclosure from the government.”
He noted that the extra time was even more critical as the defendant was in confinement.
Though the district judge has yet to make a ruling on the motion, Epoch Times reported that the prosecutors had vehemently opposed it, as they have always been against making the footage available to the defendants.
Sara Carpenter, another defendant who pushed for a trial delay on claims that the newly disclosed video surpasses what is publicly known to have existed, was denied a delay by District Judge James Boasberg, Politico reported. According to the judge, granting this delay could “derail dozens of trials that are set in the next few months.”
Another defendant, Ryan Nichols, argued that there was no valid reason to have hidden the footage away from the defendants. Ryan said through his attorneys that “any possible prejudice to the prosecution from a continuance is dwarfed by Defendant’s constitutional right to defend himself.”