This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/j20-protest-trial-latest-updates-not-guilty-verdict-rioting-anti-trump-inauguration-day-washington-a8123071.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
J20 protest trial latest: Anti-Trump activists found not guilty and avoid lengthy prison sentences J20 protest trial latest: Anti-Trump activists found not guilty and avoid lengthy prison sentences
(35 minutes later)
Six defendants facing decades in prison for protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration have been found not guilty, in a trial that sparked a national conversation on First Amendment rights in the age of Trump. Six defendants facing decades in prison for protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration have been found not guilty, in a trial that raised serious questions about First Amendment rights in the age of Trump.
A Washington, DC jury cleared the defendants of all seven charges against them. The defendants were the first of nearly 200 people slated to stand trial for their involvement in the 20 January protests. Their trial is expected to set the precedent for how the remainder of the defendants will be prosecuted moving forward. A Washington, DC jury cleared the defendants of all seven charges against them, which included rioting and multiple counts of property destruction. The defendants were the first of nearly 200 people slated to stand trial for their involvement in the 20 January protests. Their trial is expected to set the precedent for how the remaining 186 defendants will be prosecuted.
Jude Ortiz, a member of the Defend J20 team that mobilised to support the defendants, called the decision "a victory for political organising".Jude Ortiz, a member of the Defend J20 team that mobilised to support the defendants, called the decision "a victory for political organising".
"The prosecutor was trying to claim political organising was conspiracy," Mr Oritz told The Independent, "...and these acquittals show that that logic is not being bought.""The prosecutor was trying to claim political organising was conspiracy," Mr Oritz told The Independent, "...and these acquittals show that that logic is not being bought."
He added: "Hopefully that will send a very persuasive message to prosecutors everywhere that they’re not going to get away with criminalising protest organising."He added: "Hopefully that will send a very persuasive message to prosecutors everywhere that they’re not going to get away with criminalising protest organising."
The six defendants all attended the Disrupt J20 march in Washington – an event that DC Metropolitan Police say eventually turned violent, resulting in some $100,000 in property destruction. In their opening arguments, however, the prosecution conceded they had no evidence of the six defendants engaging in any of the property destruction themselves. The Disrupt J20 march was an anti-capitalist demonstration that occurred alongside Inauguration-Day protests such as the Women's March and the "Trump 420" protest in Dupont Circle. Unlike these other protests, however, more than 200 participants in the Defend J20 march were arrested for their participation.
Instead, the state urged jurors to convict based on the defendant’s participation in the march itself. In the late morning of 20 January, Metropolitan Police surrounded and arrested a group of the participants in a tactic known as kettling. Authorities claim some of the participants had broken windows, thrown chairs, and even assaulted a limousine driver, according to an indictment. 
In their opening arguments, however, the prosecution conceded they had no evidence of the six defendants engaging in any of the property destruction themselves.Instead, the state urged jurors to convict based on the defendant’s participation in the march itself.
“Each of them made a choice, and each of them played a role,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff told jurors of the defendants, according to the Huffington Post. “You don’t personally have to be the one who breaks the window to be guilty of rioting.”“Each of them made a choice, and each of them played a role,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff told jurors of the defendants, according to the Huffington Post. “You don’t personally have to be the one who breaks the window to be guilty of rioting.”
More follows...More follows...