Prosecutors grapple with alternate reality defense of the political fringe in Paul Pelosi trial
The trial has become something of a test of what happens when certain far-out strains of digital-age American radicalism collide with the criminal justice system.
SAN FRANCISCO — The man who attacked the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi came armed with a hammer, zip ties and fevered delusions about her role in a make-believe plot by elites to destroy the nation.
Now, facing trial a year later, the 43-year-old Canadian’s lawyers are trying to beat serious felony charges on a technicality — arguing that he wasn’t interfering with Pelosi’s role in Congress when he broke into the couple’s home demanding to know “Where’s Nancy?” and striking her elderly husband in the head with a hammer.
Instead, David DePape’s attorneys say, he sought to hold her captive over her “wholly unrelated” role in a bizarre conspiracy theory. They are effectively claiming that he was living in an alternate reality where her role as speaker of the House did not factor into his thinking.
As a result, the trial has become something of a test — not just of DePape’s guilt or innocence, but of what happens when certain far-out strains of digital-age American radicalism collide with the criminal justice system.
The defense’s argument reflects the growing prevalence of a certain kind of extremism in American politics — internet fever swamps, supercharged during the Covid-era as many isolated and marginalized Americans scoured fringe message boards. Now, many of those who pursued fantastical plots to violent ends — including the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — are asking judges and juries to factor in those breaks from reality when they render judgment.
For DePape, a verdict on that argument could come as soon as Wednesday when jurors get the case after a weeklong trial in federal court in San Francisco.
DePape’s argument is reminiscent of one lodged by dozens of people charged in the Jan. 6 attack, including some who burst into the halls of Congress shouting “Where are you, Nancy?” While many stormed inside the Capitol with a plan to prevent lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory, others have claimed they were unaware that lawmakers were conducting business that day — or believed the job had already been done when they got inside. In some cases, that argument has helped defendants wriggle out of the most serious charges they faced: obstruction of an official proceeding.
Judges and juries have largely rejected the claims of Jan. 6 rioters. But a handful of judges have found that some rioters could not face weightier charges because they had no clue what was happening in the Capitol and therefore couldn’t have intended to block certification of Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.
……..
- Discussion
-
What Paul Pelosi’s attacker has in common with Jan. 6 rioters https://t.co/Qznw1uyDef
— POLITICO (@politico) November 15, 2023
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.