Court Upholds Verdict in ‘Cowboys for Trump’ Founder’s Case

The news from an appeals court this week concerning J6 rioters was not good.

The founder of the pro-Trump group, “Cowboys for Trump,” tested the waters on having the verdict overturned, but now he is running out of options and may have only the Supreme Court left.

This is a very interesting defense, but I am not sure the Supreme Court will accept it.

Going to Jail

Cuoy Griffin is arguing that he did not know that Mike Pence was in the Capitol at the time of the breach.

Pence, of course, was under Secret Service protection at the time, making this a restricted area of the Capitol.

The case went before an appeals panel, but Democrats outnumbered Republicans on the bench, so we all know how this went.

The Clinton and Obama appointees upheld the verdict, while the Trump appointee dissented.

DC Circuit Judge Nina Pillard’s majority opinion stated, “The basis of the Secret Service’s authority to prevent access to designated areas for the safety of its protectees … need not be in the mind of the trespasser.”

Pillard continued, “In [Griffin’s] view, the statute also requires proof that he knew why the Capitol grounds were so restricted when he entered or remained there —i.e. that a Secret Service protectee was or would be temporarily visiting the Capitol grounds. We decline to adopt such a rule.

“Griffin’s approach would surely hinder the Secret Service’s capacity to handle the full range of potential threats.”

Trump-appointed Judge Greg Katsas disagreed, writing, “Needless to say, a trespass that threatens the life or safety of the President or Vice President is substantially more culpable than a simple trespass consisting of nothing more than knowingly entering an area ‘posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted.’

“Trespassers unaware that someone like the President or Vice President is present are much less likely to pose a threat to those officials than are individuals who knowingly trespass into an area restricted to protect them.”

This has been a point of contention in the nearly 500 cases involving trespassing, with judges just about evenly split on the issue, usually by ideology.

Griffin has taken his case to the Supreme Court in a different issue and lost, but this seems to be a bit more likely to at least have the case heard.

Regardless of how the court decides, this case will set a precedent that will impact a significant number of the J6 cases.