United States v. BaezUnited States v. Baez
Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) v. ) Criminal No. 21-0507 (PLF) )
STEPHANIE MARYLOU BAEZ, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendant Stephanie Marylou Baez’s motion
for judgment of acquittal under
I. BACKGROUND
The case against Ms. Baez is based on her unlawful entrance into the United
States Capitol building on January 6, 2021. The Court will not recount the entire background of
Ms. Baez’s case given that it has written extensively on the subject. See United States v. Baez,
Crim. No. 21-0507 (PLF),
On September 18, 2024, a grand jury returned a Third Superseding Indictment,
which charged Ms. Baez with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, in
violation of
[2] On May 15, 2024, Ms. Baez pled guilty to the four misdemeanor charges
contained in the Second Superseding Indictment – Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five, charging
Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds, in violation of
The government rested its case on December 4, 2024, and Ms. Baez moved for
judgment of acquittal pursuant to
II. LEGAL STANDARD
In other words, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted only when
“viewing the evidence most favorably to the government and according the government the
benefit of all legitimate inferences therefrom, a reasonable juror must necessarily have had a
reasonable doubt as to the defendants’ guilt.” United States v. Weisz,
III. DISCUSSION
Ms. Baez argues that the government has failed to present sufficient evidence to
sustain a conviction for Obstruction of an Official Proceeding in violation of
A. Elements of the Offense
Ms. Baez is charged with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding pursuant to
(c) Whoever corruptly –
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The government’s position is that to sustain a conviction under
(1) Ms. Baez committed or attempted to commit an act that
“alter[ed], destroy[ed], mutilate[d], or conceal[ed] a record,
document, or other object,” to be used in an official proceeding (
See Opp. at 5-6. The Court agrees that this is the appropriate formulation of the elements
necessary to find Ms. Baez guilty of violating
B. Complete Offense
The government’s first theory is that Ms. Baez violated
The core of the parties’ dispute centers on the meaning of “impair[ing] the
availability” for purposes of establishing a
This interpretation of “impair[ing] the availability” was recently considered and
rejected by Judge Howell in United States v. DeCarlo, Crim. No. 21-0073,
Judge Howell applied this definition to the events of January 6, 2021, and found that the Electoral College ballots were not “impaired” on that day; in fact they were “preserved.” In relevant part, Judge Howell reasoned:
At the time Senate staff members removed the documents from the chamber, however, the proceeding had already been temporarily suspended, [. . .] and “legislators were evacuated from the House and Senate chambers,” Gov’t’s Opp’n at 34 (citing U.S. Br. at 60, United States v. Fischer, No. 22-3038 (D.C. Cir.) (filed Aug. 8, 2022)). The temporary removal of the documents, therefore, did not immediately impact their availability to be used in the certification proceeding, since that proceeding was not in progress and both houses of Congress were recessed due to the security threat posed by the rioters to the Vice President, Members of Congress, and overwhelmed law enforcement personnel.
In the context of the overall catastrophic security breach posed by non-security screened rioters roaming Capitol corridors and rooms, the removal of the ballots from the Senate and House chambers preserved their availability for use in the certification process, rather than impaired that availability. As the government acknowledges, the electoral ballots were removed from the chamber when the rioters began to breach the Capitol grounds and building in order to “maintain custody of the ballots and make sure nothing happen[ed] to them.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting U.S. Br. at 60, United States v. Fischer, No. 22-3038 (D.C. Cir.) (filed Aug. 8, 2022)). This action was crucial to ensuring both the integrity of the ballots and that the ballots remained available to be used when the proceeding resumed later in the evening. See Carrazana, supra at III.A.2.(b) (quoting Sen. Tammy Duckworth as saying, “One of the staff members was very quick thinking and was able to grab and secure the electoral college ballots and take them with her to this location, so we have them with us and we will be able to proceed as long as Mitch McConnell calls us back into session” (emphasis supplied)); id. (quoting Sen. Jeff Merkley as saying that removing the ballots “rescued the voice of the American people” from being damaged by the rioters). While the disruption to Congress caused by the rioters, including defendants, was severe, the electoral ballots remained intact, unaltered, unimpaired, and within the control of the appropriate congressional personnel to ensure their availability for use when the official proceedings could safely resume. See id.; Gov’t’s Opp’n at 34 (acknowledging that the documents were moved to “maintain custody” over them and “make sure nothing happened to them”).
United States v. DeCarlo,
Judge Howell rejected the government’s argument that the Electoral College
ballots’ availability was impaired because the ballots “could not be readily used to certify the
election,” finding that this interpretation of
Embracing the government’s theory would risk “transforming this
evidence-focused statute into a one-size-fits-all solution to
obstruction of justice,” [Fischer,
Id. at *13 (“As the facts demonstrate, while the proceeding itself was clearly obstructed by being halted, neither the ballots themselves nor their availability for use in the proceeding were impaired by their temporary removal from the Senate chamber to ensure their safety.”).
This Court is persuaded by Judge Howell’s reasoning and concludes that the
evidence presented by the government in the instant case does not show that Ms. Baez “impaired
the availability” of the Electoral College ballots. The government has certainly presented
sufficient evidence to show that Ms. Baez’s presence in the Capitol building on January 6, 2021,
served to obstruct Congress’s Joint Session such that the Congress was unable to count to the
Electoral College ballots and certify the election. For example, Mr. Schwager testified that
following the rioters’ breach of the Capitol building, the Joint Session of Congress was recessed,
and the Electoral ballots were removed from the Senate Chamber for safekeeping. He further
testified that the ballots were only returned to the Senate Chamber after the rioters were removed
from the Capitol building and the Joint Session had reconvened. This evidence, however, does
not show that Ms. Baez’s actions “diminish[ed], weaken[ed], or ma[de] worse” the availability of
the Electoral College ballots. United States v. DeCarlo,
The government does not argue that the evidence presented during Ms. Baez’s
bench trial warrants a different result from that reached in DeCarlo. Instead, it argues in a
*11
footnote that DeCarlo was incorrectly decided. See Opp. at 24 n.5. In particular, the
government contends that under DeCarlo’s interpretation of
In sum, “while the Government’s evidence shows that [Ms. Baez] and other
rioters ‘certainly prevented the immediate ability of Congress to use the ballots in the official
proceeding as intended, they did so by stopping the official proceeding itself’ and forcing the
evacuation of the Senate Chamber, ‘not by impairing the certificates’ integrity or availability for
use in an official proceeding.’” United States v. Kelley, Crim. No. 22-408 (CKK), 2024
WL 4708086, at *13 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2024) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)
(quoting United States v. DeCarlo,
C. Attempt
The government next argues that the evidence submitted at trial is sufficient to
establish that Ms. Baez “attempted to impair the availability and integrity of the Electoral
College ballots.” Opp. at 24 (emphasis omitted). Ms. Baez maintains that she cannot be
convicted of attempting to violate
1. Elements of Crime of Attempt
As discussed supra at 5-6,
Under the common law, the crime of attempt consists of “(1) an intent to do an act
or to bring about certain consequences which would in law amount to a crime; and (2) an act in
furtherance of that intent which . . . goes beyond mere preparation.” United States v.
Washington,
Applying these common law principles to the instant case, the government is
required to show that Ms. Baez had the “deliberate and conscious purpose or design of
accomplishing [the] very specific and more remote result” of altering, destroying, mutilating,
concealing (
2. Evidence Presented at Trial
The government argues that it presented sufficient evidence at trial to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Baez had the specific intent necessary to sustain a
With respect to the second category – evidence that Ms. Baez was dissatisfied with the presidential election results and intended to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 – the government introduced several of Ms. Baez’s social media posts and messages. See Opp. at 14-15. For example, on December 28, 2020, Ms. Baez posted an Instagram story containing a screenshot of a social media post from then-President Trump stating, “See you in Washington, DC on January 6th,” adding the text “Ready to fight for America!!!” Gov’t Ex. 616B. On December 30, 2020, Ms. Baez posted another Instagram story stating, in relation to a story about January 6, that “[t]hings are going to get spicy. Can’t wait for DC.” Gov’t Ex. 617B. Also on December 30, 2020, Ms. Baez sent a message to an individual stating, “[t]hings are for sure going down on the 6th. People are done being pushed around.” Gov’t Ex. 618A.
As to the final category – evidence of Ms. Baez’s actions at the Capitol on January 6 – the government introduced video footage from Ms. Baez’s and others’ social media accounts and from the Capitol’s CCTV documenting Ms. Baez’s movement through the Capitol building. See Opp. at 15-16. At approximately 2:31 p.m. on January 6, 2021, Ms. Baez – before entering the Capitol building herself – posted to Instagram several photographs of rioters in the *16 Capitol building, adding the caption “[p]rotestors outside Senate Chamber, have breached chamber.” Gov’t Ex. 620B. CCTV footage shows Ms. Baez entering the Capitol building through the Parliamentarian Door on the Senate side of the building at approximately 2:56 p.m. Gov’t Ex. 201A; see Transcript of May 15, 2024 Plea Hearing (“Plea Hr’g Tr.”) [Dkt. No. 115] at 30:2-11. After the Capitol police pushed a large number of rioters – including Ms.
Baez – outside of the Capitol building toward the Northwest Plaza of the Capitol, Ms. Baez reentered the Capitol through the Senate Wing Door at approximately 3:07 p.m. Gov’t Exs. 202A, 505; see Plea Hr’g Tr. at 30:2-11. Ms. Baez spent the majority of the rest of her time in the Capitol building in the Capitol Crypt. See Gov’t Exs. 203A, 204A, 306A, 507. At one point, Ms. Baez briefly departed the Crypt and encountered a Capitol Police officer blocking access to a stairwell leading to the above floor where the Senate and House chambers are located. Gov’t Exs. 204A, 306A. The Capitol Police officer stepped aside, and Ms. Baez began encouraging other rioters to go up the stairwell, stating “C’mon guys, go, go, go!” See Gov’t Ex. 507. Ms. Baez herself did not go up the stairwell. She returned to the Crypt and was then escorted out of the Capitol building by officers at approximately 3:34 p.m. See Gov’t Exs. 203A, 204A, 206A, 207, 208A, 308A.
In the subsequent hours after her removal from the Capitol and through January 7, 2021, Ms. Baez messaged individuals and posted to social media statements about the rioters’ effect on the certification, such as “I went in to document. But this was beyond peaceful protests. Because of the storming at the capitol building we stopped the electoral vote count,” Gov’t Ex. 625A, and “[p]eople are upset, but do they realize we stopped the electoral count?” Gov’t Ex. 626A. Ms. Baez also messaged an individual expressing that further action may be required, stating “[a] lot of people are switching their flights to stay longer! Just keep taking the *17 [C]apitol when they try to certify anything.” Gov’t Ex. 632A; see Gov’t Ex. 627A (stating in an Instagram comment, “[w]e will do all we have to, to keep delaying this FAKE certification.”).
3. The Government Has Not Introduced Sufficient Evidence
Based on this evidentiary record and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
government’s favor, the Court concludes that the government has not provided sufficient
evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Ms. Baez had the specific intent to alter,
destroy, mutilate, conceal, or otherwise impair the integrity or availability of the Electoral
College ballots. The government’s argument with respect to specific intent is that a factfinder
can reasonably conclude that Ms. Baez specifically intended to impair the integrity or availability
of the Electoral College ballots because she “inten[ded] to interfere with the certification” and
had an “understanding of” the electoral certification process. Opp. at 19. This argument,
however, does not rely on evidence suggesting that Ms. Baez had “an intent . . . to bring about
certain consequences . . . .” United States v. Washington,
The fact of the matter is that outside of evidence reflecting that Ms. Baez was
aware that Congress planned to count the Electoral College ballots on January 6, 2021, the
government has not presented any evidence that Ms. Baez “searched for or had any contact with”
the Electoral College ballots, or that Ms. Baez “suggested that any other rioters should search
any Capitol areas or offices” for the ballots. United States v. DeCarlo,
The government makes two additional arguments in support of their contention
that it has proven Ms. Baez acted with the requisite specific intent. First, the government argues
that a factfinder could infer that Ms. Baez intended the natural and probable consequence of
“joining a mob invasion of the Capitol,” which it contends was the mutilation, altering, or
destruction of the Electoral College ballots. Opp. at 20 (citing United States v. Rivera, 607 F.
Supp. 3d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2022), aff’d, No. 22-3088,
Second, the government argues that Ms. Baez’s entrance into the Capitol building after the rioters had breached the Senate Chambers suggests that her “intentions were not limited to delaying the joint session” – which had already been recessed – and that it shows that she “wanted to access the ballots” or “allow rioters who were already in proximity to the Chamber sufficient time to locate, then alter, mutilate, conceal, replace, or destroy them.” Opp. at 19. Ms. Baez’s intention to allow other rioters to access the ballots is more appropriately addressed in the context of the government’s aiding and abetting theory discussed below. As for Ms. Baez’s intention to access the ballots, her entrance into the Capitol building after the recess of Congress could be explained by a variety of different intentions – such as her desire to continue the delay of the certification process – and cannot be a reasonable basis to conclude that she had the requisite specific intent.
In sum, the Court finds that the government’s evidence is insufficient for a
reasonable factfinder to conclude that Ms. Baez acted with the specific intent necessary to
convict her of attempting to violate
D. Aiding and Abetting
The government’s final argument is that it “has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that [Ms. Baez] aided and abetted the attempts of other rioters to obstruct an official proceeding.”
Opp. at 27 (emphasis omitted). Ms. Baez argues that the government has failed to prove that she
is guilty of aiding and abetting the
To succeed under an aiding and abetting theory, the government must show:
“(1) the specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another; (2) guilty knowledge
*21
on the part of the accused; (3) that an offense was being committed by someone; and (4) that the
accused assisted or participated in the commission of the offense.” United States v.
Washington,
The Court concludes that the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence
to establish the first and third elements of aider and abettor liability. Turning first to the third
element – that an offense was being committed by someone, that is, the principal – the
government has not offered any evidence in this case to show that any of the rioters on January 6
violated or attempted to violate
The government attempts to skirt this lack of evidence by arguing that Ms. Baez
was “aware of plans being hatched by others to interfere with the ballots.” Opp. at 27. In
support, the government points to three pieces of evidence: (1) an Instagram story where Ms.
Baez included a screenshot of a Rasmussen Reports’ Twitter post quoting Joseph Stalin saying
“[t]hose who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything,”
Gov’t Ex. 615A; (2) a message from Ms. Baez stating, in response to a message inquiring about
what was planned for January 6, “[t]hey are finalizing the electoral! This is when they can
switch them for Trump,” Gov’t Ex. 613A; and (3) an Instagram story from January 6, 2021,
where Ms. Baez included photographs of rioters outside of the Senate Chambers with added text
stating “Protestors outside Senate Chamber, have breached chamber.” Gov’t Ex. 620B. The
closest the government comes to showing that Ms. Baez was “aware of plans being hatched by
others to interfere with the ballots” was her message stating that “they can switch [the ballots] for
Trump,” which based on the entire message, seems to be referring to Congress, not the rioters.
See Gov’t Ex. 613A (“They are finalizing the electoral! This is when they can switch them for
Trump.”). But even if the government’s evidence showed that Ms. Baez was “aware of plans
being hatched by others to interfere with the ballots,” Opp. at 27, the government would still fail
to make the required showing that the offense was actually committed by a principal offender
because it has not shown that a rioter took a substantial step towards the commission of a
In any event, even if the Court were to find that the government satisfied its
burden of showing that an offense was committed by a principal offender, the government has
not met its burden of showing the first element of aider and abettor liability – that Ms. Baez
*23
acted with “the specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another.” United States
v. Washington,
Because the government has not offered evidence to find that anyone other than
Ms. Baez violated
In viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, the Court concludes
that the government has not offered sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction pursuant to
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Defendant Stephanie Baez’s
An Order consistent with this Opinion will issue this same day.
SO ORDERED.
___________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge DATE: January 17, 2025
Notes
[1] The Court has reviewed the following documents and attachments thereto in
connection with the pending motion: Third Superseding Indictment [Dkt. No. 103]; Amicus
Curiae Memorandum in Support (“Amicus Mem.”) [Dkt. No. 125]; Defendant Stephanie Baez’s
[3] In its reply memorandum, amicus curiae disputes the government’s formulation of
the elements of
[4] The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlines the
requirement of electoral certification. See