Insets, left to right: Yvonne St. Cyr (U.S. Department of Justice). Background: Then-President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021 (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).
There was much discussion about a woman’s mental state in the federal district on Monday morning as a convicted Jan. 6 defendant aimed to prove that her riotous behavior was somehow unduly influenced by then-President Donald Trump‘s false claims of a stolen 2020 election.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, however, did not seem receptive to the notion that what the 45th president told his supporters at the “Stop the Steal” rally mattered much to the resulting chaos, destruction, and all-around maelstrom of lawbreaking.
Yvonne St. Cyr, 56, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison, to be followed by 36 months of supervised release, in September 2023 after being convicted in March of that year on six charges total including two felony counts of obstructing and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. She was also convicted on four misdemeanor counts of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.
Now, St. Cyr’s appellate team says her trial was unfair, marred by both a constitutional defect and a heavy-handed judge who shoved his thumb on the scale for the prosecution.
In legalese, the dispute before the appeals court concerned the defendant’s mens rea, or mental state. Defense attorney Samuel Macomber said this was the “primary issue” — specifically how she tried to prove what, exactly, she was thinking that fateful day.
In real terms, the defense complained U.S. District Judge John D. Bates improperly barred his client from showing “a video she took at the Ellipse of the president’s speech on January 6th.”
In constructing that piece of evidence, the attorney said, counsel made a “20-minute exhibit from an hour and 20-minute-long video.” But, Macomber complained, after the evidentiary groundwork was sufficiently laid, the trial court excluded 17 minutes of the video.
“The district court’s exclusion of that exhibit was both a denial of Ms. St. Cyr’s constitutional right to present a complete defense and an abuse of discretion,” the defense attorney argued. “The video was important. The video corroborates Ms. St. Cyr’s testimony and makes it more persuasive. It gave the jury a shared experience to relate to her testimony and showed the crescendo of her belief that the election was stolen and that she was there to witness history.”
One judge appeared to be unmoved by the argument.
“What difference does it make if she believed — and if the jury credited her belief — that the election was stolen and she was there to witness history?” Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins asked. “How does any of that exculpate her?”
The defense attorney answered that his client’s belief with regard to election theft “goes to her intent” on the felony civil disorder offenses.
“She had a mens rea to witness history,” the defense attorney said. “Not a mens rea to obstruct.”
The judge pushed back, saying that those two things “are not mutually exclusive.”
“You can witness history by obstructing,” Wilkins intoned.
The defense attorney conceded the point but returned to the overarching argument that the video offered “the narrative relevance” of St. Cyr’s mental state. Macomber added that the “theme” put forth by the defense was “that she was there to witness history — not to obstruct.”
Another member of the panel chimed in to criticize the argument.
“Even if the jury viewed the evidence in the way your client wishes them to, the question is: mens rea at the time of the conduct with which she’s charged,” Circuit Judge Patricia Millett said. “And there’s a significant time gap.”
Again, Macomber conceded the point — kind of.
Timing is important, the defense attorney said, but in a different way that inures to his client’s benefit.
He offered three reasons why: (1) motive is an issue when a defendant’s mental state is an issue; (2) the obvious, and this he called a low-standard, narrative relevance of time; and (3) the “line-drawing” between St. Cyr’s various behaviors that day was an abuse of discretion by the trial court judge because it shows the district court adopted “the government’s theory of the case without allowing the defense to present its theory of the case.”
The panel seemed to remain skeptical.
“Apart from the government’s case, there was significant time lapse and the jury saw videos of her behavior at the Capitol and her words at the Capitol,” Millett said. “Her motive to be at the rally is a very different question than her motive to be at the Capitol — and to engage in and do — her motive was obviously relevant to her mens rea — to be at the Capitol and engage in the activities herself.”
The defense attorney tried to sweep away the confusion.
“She carried the same intent throughout the entire day,” Macomber said. “And her testimony makes that clear. And the exclusion of the video evidence is important because it shows that she had that intent at the rally and carried that intent through to the Capitol.”
The defense attorney went on to note that the defense’s offered — and mostly rejected — video evidence was “not prejudicial because it was short” compared to the prosecution’s use of video “in the context of the trial.”
“That exclusion was an abuse of discretion relative to the government’s case,” Macomber said. “It’s a double standard for the court to allow the government to show 70 minutes of video and deny –.”
One of the judges then interjected to ask if the defense, during trial, had objected to the government’s introduction of their video evidence.
“Some of them, yes, your honor,” the defense attorney replied.
“Some of them?” the judge asked back.
Macomber offered some examples of some such objections, specifically highlighting objections to the government showing jurors the same events from various angles.
“The defense’s theory is not that the government should not have had that time,” the defense attorney said. “The theory is the defense should have had the opportunity to make their case.”
And then the court cut him off again.
“Well that’s the different from the theory that the government got its videos and we didn’t get ours,” Millett said.
At one point, Macomber said: “The more important piece is that the defense theory matters.”
But that opinion did not seem to be shared by the judges in the D.C. Circuit on Monday.
Department of Justice attorney Mary Fleming, on rebuttal, told the panel that the 17 minutes of video excluded by the trial court “was irrelevant” because Trump’s statements about the election “do not negate her intent to obstruct or impeded law enforcement hours later.”
The court had no questions for the government.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
