Jan 6th judge rebuked by higher court

The judge demanded one defendant not be allowed to view social media or conservative websites and suggested he attend mental health treatment because he refused to accept the results of the election.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief; and the motion to remand and the opposition thereto, which includes a request to vacate the special condition of supervised release subjecting appellant to computer monitoring and searches, it is ORDERED that the computer-monitoring condition be vacated and the case be remanded for further proceedings.  

The district court plainly erred in imposing the computer-monitoring condition without considering whether it was “reasonably related” to the relevant sentencing factors and involved “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to achieve the purposes behind sentencing.  18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); see United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233, 242–46 (D.C. Cir. 2010).  If the district court decides on remand to impose a new computer-monitoring condition, “it should explain its reasoning,” “develop the record in support of its decision,” and ensure that the condition accords with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and constitutional protections.  Burroughs, 613 F.3d at 246.

This particular judge suggested the following:

Also, I would require that he participate in mental health treatment, if that is deemed to be necessary and that he remain in that treatment until it is no longer felt to be necessary by the probation department.

And since he has used social media in order to provide what I consider to be disinformation about this situation, I would require that he permit his computer use to be subject to monitoring and inspection by the probation department to see if he is, in fact, disseminating information of the nature that relates to the events that resulted in what occurred on January 6th of 2021.

Keep in mind that the judge also suggested that Tucker Carlson showing the defendant walking in and back out of the capital was disinformation. The judge stated as much without really providing the counter-evidence that would disprove video surveillance. I guess it is one of those time where you have to disbelieve your lying eyes and listen to what a Judge says instead.

But the bottom line here is that the Judge decided to not only over sentence this person, but to personally try to monitor what media he could watch or listen to, deny him free speech, and suggest he be locked up in a mental health facility for his beliefs about the 2020 election. Oh, and they took and kept all of his electronics (phones, computers, tablets) and have not given them back.