United States v. VAGLICA, 1:23-cr-00429

Joseph Vaglica is charged with five misdemeanors related to his conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, including entering and remaining in a restricted building in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)-(2).
Two counts require proof that Vaglica "knowingly" engaged in prohibited conduct in an area restricted due to the presence of a Secret Service protectee (e.g., former Vice President Pence).
Vaglica and the government dispute whether the statute requires Vaglica to have known of the protectee’s presence as an element of the offense.
Courts in the District of Columbia have issued conflicting rulings on this statutory interpretation issue.
Vaglica moved to stay his prosecution until the D.C. Circuit resolves the issue in two pending appeals (Griffin and Christie).
The court considered the motion against equities, timeliness, and prejudice to the government due to aged evidence and potential hardship to Vaglica.

Issue	Government's Argument	Vaglica's Argument	Held
Whether case should be stayed pending circuit decision	A stay would materially prejudice government; aging evidence and witnesses’ fading memories	Stay warranted to avoid potential hardship being subject to second trial if law changes	Motion to stay denied
Whether § 1752(a) requires knowledge of protectee’s presence as an element	Statute only requires defendant know area is restricted; actual presence is a jurisdictional fact, not a mens rea element	Statute requires government to prove defendant knew a Secret Service protectee was present or would be present	Court will address jury instruction at trial, but sees no reason to delay case
Appropriateness of late-filed motion for stay	Stay motion filed just before trial, after pretrial motion deadline, weighs against stay	Timing necessary due to pending appellate decisions	Court denies on grounds of untimeliness and lack of hardship
Potential hardship or inequity to Vaglica absent a stay	None shown; hardship speculative and avoidable with proper jury instructions	Would face hardship if convicted and circuit later adopts his statutory interpretation	No undue hardship or inequity shown, motion denied

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (guides court’s discretion to grant or deny stays, emphasizing balancing of harms)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (articulates when mens rea requirements attach to jurisdictional facts under federal criminal statutes)