United States v. Rivera
June 17, 2022 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual's knowing participation in a collective act of civil disorder, such as a riot that disrupts official government proceedings, is sufficient to establish criminal liability for that disruption. A defendant's contribution to the collective disruption satisfies the statutory requirement that their conduct 'in fact impeded or disrupted' government business, without needing to prove their actions alone were the but-for cause.
Facts:
- In late December 2020, Jesus Rivera announced on Facebook that he was going to Washington, D.C. to attend the 'Stop the Steal' rally.
- On January 6, 2021, after attending the rally, Rivera marched to the U.S. Capitol, livestreaming his journey and encouraging viewers to 'share, share, share!' while calling rioters 'patriots.'
- Rivera advanced past destroyed security fencing and observed intact barriers with 'Area Closed' signs clearly displayed.
- As he neared the Capitol's Upper West Terrace, Rivera witnessed police lines being overrun and was exposed to chemical irritants deployed by law enforcement but continued to advance with the mob.
- While filming the riot, Rivera expressed his hope that the 'revolution' would 'pull [Members of Congress’] asses out of there.'
- Approximately ten minutes after rioters breached the Senate Wing Door, Rivera entered the Capitol building himself through a large, broken window.
- Rivera spent about twenty minutes inside the Capitol, where he continued to livestream, film, and take selfies in various locations, including the Crypt.
- Upon returning home, Rivera sent a message to a Facebook friend stating, 'I can honestly say I had a great time,' and referred to his actions as doing 'Patriot shit.'
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government charged Jesus D. Rivera by Information in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Rivera was charged with four counts: Entering a Restricted Building, Disorderly Conduct in a Restricted Building, Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building, and Parading in a Capitol Building.
- The case proceeded to a two-day bench trial before a United States District Judge.
- At the conclusion of the government's case, Rivera made a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.
- The court took the motion under advisement pending its final verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual's knowing entry into the U.S. Capitol during a riot, where he actively documented and encouraged the mob's actions, satisfy the statutory elements for unlawful entry, disorderly conduct intended to disrupt Congress, and parading in a Capitol building, even if Congress had already recessed before his physical entry into the building?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Yes, an individual who knowingly joins and actively participates in a riot at the Capitol satisfies the statutory elements for these offenses. The defendant, Rivera, knowingly entered a restricted building, as evidenced by his disregard for physical barriers, 'Area Closed' signs, police lines, and his entry through a broken window. His conduct was disorderly and disruptive, and his statements celebrating a 'revolution' to 'pull [Members of Congress’] asses out' demonstrate a clear intent to impede the orderly conduct of government. The court rejected the argument that Rivera did not 'in fact' disrupt Congress because it had already recessed; his presence contributed to the collective disruption that prevented proceedings from resuming. Using a 'raindrop in a flood' analogy, the court held that each rioter who contributed to the overall disruption is causally responsible. Finally, his actions were not merely those of a videographer but of an active participant in a political demonstration, thereby constituting parading or demonstrating.
Analysis:
This district court opinion is significant for its clear articulation of a collective action theory of causation in the context of the January 6 prosecutions. The court's 'raindrop in a flood' metaphor provides a powerful and easily applied framework for establishing that an individual's participation in a mob 'in fact' disrupted government proceedings, sidestepping complex but-for causation arguments. This reasoning effectively counters defenses that a single person's actions were insignificant in the larger chaos. Furthermore, the decision draws a sharp line between passive observation and active participation, clarifying that filming and livestreaming are not a defense when coupled with words and conduct that identify with and promote the illegal actions of a mob.
