Sacramento-area man charged in Jan. 6 Capitol riot says his actions were free speech
Lawyers for Sean Mchugh, an Auburn man who faces the most serious charges among Sacramento-area defendants in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, are asking for half the charges to be thrown out on the grounds that he never entered the Capitol building and was only exercising his free speech rights.
Mchugh, who faces eight felony and two misdemeanor counts that include assaulting or resisting officers, obstructing an official proceeding and physical violence on Capitol grounds, has been in custody since his arrest last May and is currently awaiting a trial scheduled to begin March 4.
He is accused of traveling to Washington, D.C., with two people and using a bullhorn to encourage rioters on the grounds to move forward toward police lines. Mchugh also is accused of using a metal sign and bear spray against officers during the chaos that temporarily halted Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election over then-president Donald Trump.
The 35-year-old construction worker, who has been ordered to remain in custody pending trial because he poses a danger to the community and faces up to 20 years, is seen on various videos at the Capitol and was arrested after the FBI received a series of tips about him, court records say.
But Mchugh’s lawyer says in a new federal court filing that five of the 10 counts against him should be dismissed on largely technical grounds, including the notion that Congress’ actions that day were not an “official proceeding” as defined by law.
Instead, Assistant Federal Defender Maria Jacob argues in a 29-page filing the work of Congress that day was an “administrative and ceremonial” duty not covered by the law.
“The government’s theory appears to be that Mr. Mchugh’s statements allegedly made to law enforcement and the crowd while using a megaphone along with his alleged ‘attempt’ to pull back a barricade on the capitol grounds is sufficient to show that he ‘impeded’ or ‘influenced’ the electoral count,” Jacob wrote. “Based on this, Mr. Mchugh could not have possibly been on notice that, by wielding a megaphone, he was committing a felony obstruction of an official proceeding.
“Mr. Mchugh’s words were an expression of his First Amendment rights, and there was no criminal intent to do anything more than express his anger regarding the election.”