United States v. Julian Khater
21-3033
| D.C. Cir. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- Appellant Julian Khater appealed the district court’s May 12, 2021 pretrial detention order after the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
- Khater was found on video to have approached officers and twice sprayed them with a chemical agent, disabling at least three officers and creating gaps in the police line.
- The district court found evidence of some prior planning/coordination (including a co-defendant’s remark: “it’s still early”), and that Khater’s conduct contributed to the breach.
- Khater argued the district court misapplied United States v. Munchel by treating assaultive Jan. 6 conduct as a categorical basis for mandatory detention.
- The district court stated Munchel creates an elevated category but emphasized it conducts individualized, factbound assessments; it concluded no conditions could reasonably assure community safety.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the detention order, finding the district court made an individualized assessment and did not clearly err in its factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied a non-rebuttable presumption of dangerousness based on Munchel | District court treated assaultive Jan. 6 conduct as categorically requiring detention | Court applied Munchel as guidance but made an individualized, factbound inquiry | Court held no impermissible categorical presumption; individualized assessment was made |
| Whether the court clearly erred in finding that no condition(s) of release could mitigate danger | Conditions could mitigate risk; detention was unnecessary | Khater’s violent assaults, planning, and contribution to breach show risk that conditions cannot reasonably abate | Court held there was no clear error; findings support that no combination of conditions would assure community safety |
| Whether evidence of planning/coordination and violent assault justified elevated-danger finding | Video and context do not establish the requisite planning/coordination or heightened dangerousness | Video, witness testimony, and co-defendant statements show planning/coordination and unprovoked assaults with chemical spray | Court affirmed district court’s factual findings that supported elevated-danger determination |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (requires individualized, factbound detention inquiries and distinguishes those who assaulted officers from less culpable participants)
- United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1990) (detention inquiry must be factbound and individualized)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (articulates standard for overturning factual findings — "definite and firm conviction" of mistake)