United States v. Brown, Criminal No. 2021-0565

Background

Brown traveled from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. and was a member of an encrypted group chat called “The California Patriots- DC Brigade.”
Security-camera and cell-phone videos place Brown at the front line of a tunnel at the Capitol on Jan. 6; footage shows him brandishing a mostly-black canister that the Government says was pepper spray.
A cell-phone video of the same moment appears to show a rioter (clothed and armed like Brown) deploying pepper spray against officers; the videos’ sequencing and matching canister features strongly support the Government’s identification of Brown as the sprayer.
FBI searched Brown’s home and car after arrest and found multiple cans of pepper spray, a taser, a machete, a baseball bat, a bow and arrows, a receipt for bear spray, ammunition, and zip ties.
A magistrate judge in California ordered Brown released on bond, the Government sought review in D.C., and the district court conducted de novo review and revoked the release, ordering Brown detained pending trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown is eligible for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act	Gov't: Charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) (assault of federal officers with a dangerous weapon), a categorical crime of violence making him eligible under § 3142(f)(1)(A).	Brown: Did not dispute eligibility.	Court: Agreed Brown is eligible because § 111(b) is a crime of violence.
Whether the Gov't proved dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence to justify detention	Gov't: Videos, witness ID, matching canister, weapons found, and prior disruptive conduct (Costco protest) show a concrete threat to public safety.	Brown: Challenges identity of the sprayer, emphasizes community ties, employment, and lack of serious criminal history; argues bond conditions could assure safety.	Court: Found clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness and revoked release.
Whether the video and photographic evidence sufficiently identifies Brown as the pepper-sprayer	Gov't: Matching clothing, distinctive hat, unique canister features, sequencing in multiple videos, and witness ID establish identity.	Brown: Claims the person who sprayed is not clearly shown to be him.	Court: Concluded the audiovisual evidence, corroborated by witness ID and canister features, identifies Brown and weighs heavily for detention.
Whether any conditions of release could reasonably assure community safety	Gov't: No combination of conditions could mitigate the risk given Brown’s willingness to use chemical spray and prior disruptive conduct and weapons access.	Brown: Has deep local ties, employment, family who will post bond, sobriety, and limited criminal history.	Court: Found conditions insufficient to ensure safety and ordered detention.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (pretrial-detention inquiry must be individualized; government must prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence)
United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Bail Reform Act permits detention only in carefully defined circumstances)
United States v. Vasquez-Benitez, 919 F.3d 546 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (pretrial inquiry framed as whether defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community)
United States v. Quaglin, [citation="851 F. App'x 218"] (D.C. Cir. 2021) (affirming that an § 111(b) prosecution qualifies as a crime of violence for pretrial-detention eligibility)
United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1991) (weight of the evidence is the least important § 3142(g) factor)
United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485 (11th Cir. 1988) (dangerousness warranting detention need not be limited to physical violence)
United States v. Taylor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D.D.C. 2018) (discussing the broad, open-ended assessment under § 3142(g)(4))
United States v. Worrell, [citation="848 F. App'x 5"] (D.C. Cir. 2021) (affirming detention in a case involving pepper spray against officers)