Albert Watkins responds

Albert Watkins was Jacob Chansley’s lawyer through the guilty plea and sentencing. I asked Mr. Watkins for comment on the brief filed by the government that I quote in the adjacent post. He quickly responded with a message bearing markings that made it look to me like the message had been sent out to four or five others before me. I find his statement not entirely responsive or on point, which may reflect its having been drafted in response to other inquiries before mine. This is the statement he sent me verbatim in its entirety:

The Government’s assertion is erroneous. In the weeks prior to the plea repeated requests were made to make sure we had all the video footage. In response, AUSA Paschall produced a number of videos, some of which were produced just prior to the plea, necessitating an in-person visit with Jake where he was confined to show him the footage prior to finalizing his decision to enter into the plea deal.

The plea deal allowed for an appeal of the sentence. Jake was specifically permitted under the plea agreement to argue for a sentence beneath the range established under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

At the same time there was genuine concern about the ability of ant J6 defendant to receive a dais [i.e., fair] trial before any jury comprised of residents of the District of Columbia.

The footage that was specific to Jake was to have been fully disclosed by the Government prior to the plea.

The timing of the footage is important as it fully debunks the Government’s often repeated assertion that Jake was a danger; leading the charge into the Capitol; inciting others; threatening others, and obstructing an official proceeding.

This footage would have been of significant value to the court during any one of the three motions I argued before the court to seek the Pretrial release of Jake during which the Government characterized Jake’s flag and pole set as a deadly weapon.

Review of the Court’s orders in response to the motions for Pretrial release it is clear the Court relied heavily on the Government’s mischaracterization of Jake as being a danger.

The plea hearing for Jake involved the careful and detailed examination of Jake under oath to ensure that he was knowingly and voluntarily entering into the plea, having been fully informed of all material evidence prior to making his decision. This was an examination that took place in the presence of the AUSA.

The Court was not aware of this footage. It was material. The Court was determined to make sure Jake’s plea was freely and voluntarily entered into.

At sentencing, the court specifically noted that if Jake had gone to trial and been found guilty he would have been sentenced to a far greater period of incarceration in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

The verdicts to date have all been swift repudiations of the arguments set forth by defendant.

At the time of his sentence, Jake received the most time. Presently, Jake is the recipient of the 30th longest sentence.

Recall, at the time of his plea, Jake had been in solitary confinement for approximately 11 months…and was enduring the mental health hardships associated with his diagnosis, rendering him fighting for his life and mental health well being.

Jake was sentenced and thereafter engaged new counsel who had the time to file a motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not do so. He filed a notice of appeal but dismissed the appellate proceeding before filing a brief.

Over one year and two months following sentencing the Government’s own video footage comes to light on Tucker Carlson’s show.

This was not a function of a rogue AUSA, but rather, a function of a discovery protocol established at the highest levels of the DOJ.

Remember, the DOJ characterized Jake as the face of insurrection. The assertion that the non-disclosure of the exculpatory footage was a “whoops” moment in nothing short of unconscionable.

I don’t fully understand this statement, but it must be considered in the context of the Statement of Offense and Plea Agreement on which Chansley and Watkins signed off. The plea agreement to which Watkins subscribed explicitly waived any discovery that hadn’t already been provided. It says nothing to suggest that all video related to Chansley has been turned over or even to suggest that Watkins demanded that it be turned over prior to the plea. If it was critical to the agreement, it should be reflected in the terms.

Here, the plea agreement not only fails to provide for such production, it expressly states in the “Complete Agreement” clause at page 9 that there are “no agreements, promises, understandings, or representations” other than the ones written in the agreement. I find that difficult to square the with Watkins’s statement to me.

One more point. If Chansley and Watkins objected to the portrayal of Chansley as a danger, leading the charge, and obstructing an official proceeding, they probably should not have agreed to a statement of facts that described Chansley as a danger, leading the charge, and obstructing an official proceeding (at paragraphs 7-12 of the statement of facts). I don’t think it suffices to say that Chansley had no choice without more that Watkins leaves unsaid.