United States v. Baez, Criminal No. 2021-0507

Stephanie Marylou Baez was charged with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c) and 2, related to her actions at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
A bench trial was held in December 2024 after a Third Superseding Indictment; Baez had already pled guilty to four misdemeanors linked to her conduct.
The government presented witness testimony (Senate Counsel and FBI agent), social media posts, and video evidence tracing Baez’s movement in the Capitol.
The key legal question: whether Baez’s conduct amounted to obstructing or attempting/assisting in obstruction of the congressional proceedings by impairing the availability or integrity of the Electoral College ballots.
The case was governed by the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 1512(c) in Fischer v. United States (2024), which clarified that the statute targets obstructive acts related to evidence, not just any proceeding disruption.
Judge Friedman reviewed all evidence and arguments, ultimately granting Baez's motion for acquittal due to insufficient evidence on key elements of the charged offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does entry and conduct in Capitol constitute obstruction impairing ballot availability (§1512(c))?	Baez’s presence delayed Congress’s use of ballots, thus impaired availability.	No evidence Baez diminished or impaired the ballots—only delayed the proceeding.	Government failed to prove impairment as required by law; acquittal granted.
Did Baez attempt to impair the ballots or proceedings?	Her intent to halt certification and knowledge of the process shows attempt.	No specific intent or act directed at impairing ballots themselves.	No specific intent proven towards evidence; attempt argument fails.
Did Baez aid and abet other rioters in obstructing the proceeding by affecting ballots?	She facilitated rioters possibly targeting ballots and encouraged mass action.	No evidence of a principal committing the offense or Baez intending to facilitate such.	No principal or intent shown; no aider/abettor liability.
Is Rule 29 motion for acquittal appropriate here?	Insufficient evidence narrowly construed under Fischer; Baez entitled to acquittal.	Court should deny, citing her obstructive conduct as sufficient.	Motion granted; government’s evidence insufficient under relevant standards.

Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480 (2024) (clarified § 1512(c) requires conduct directed at evidence used in an official proceeding, not merely general obstruction)
United States v. Kayode, 254 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rule 29 acquittal standards)
United States v. Harrington, 108 F.3d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Rule 29 sufficiency of evidence standard)
United States v. Campbell, 702 F.2d 262 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (standard for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Washington, 106 F.3d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (standard for criminal attempt and aiding and abetting)