United States v. Chansley

                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


 v.                                                              Case No. 1:21-cr-3-RCL

 JACOB ANTHONY CHANSLEY,

          Defendant.


                                MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

       Defendant Jacob Anthony Chansley stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In that

respect, he was like thousands of others that day. But he stood out to the entire world because of

his “unmistakable outfit” of “a horned coyote-tail headdress; red, white, and blue face paint;

gloves; and no shirt.” United States v. Chansley, 525 F. Supp. 3d 151, 155 (D.D.C. 2021). In

addition, he had armed himself with a serious weapon: “a six-foot pole with an American flag zip-

tied to the shaft and a metal spearhead fixed to the top.” Id.

       Mr. Chansley has completed his prison sentence and much of his term of supervised

release. Now, he has moved for the return of his property seized and still held by the government,

including his spear and helmet. Since the government has not established that it still needs these

items as evidence and has not sought their forfeiture, the Court will GRANT Mr. Chansley’s

motion.

                                     I.    BACKGROUND

       In September, 2021 Mr. Chansley pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of an official

proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), in exchange for the government’s dismissal of

the five other charges then-pending against him. See Min. Entry (Sept. 3, 2021). At sentencing,




                                                 1
Mr. Chansley unequivocally accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse. 1 The

Court “heavily credited” this apparent remorse and acceptance of responsibility. United States v.

Chansley, No. 1:21-cr-3 (RCL), 2023 WL 4637312, at *5 (D.D.C. July 20, 2023). Accordingly,

it sentenced him to 41 months’ incarceration, the bottom of the Guidelines range, with credit for

time served. See J., ECF No. 92, at 2. The Court also sentenced Mr. Chansley to three years of

supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and $2,000 in restitution. See J. at 3, 6.

         Although Mr. Chansley appealed his conviction, ECF No. 108, the D.C. Circuit later

dismissed the appeal pursuant to his own motion, ECF No. 112. In April 2023, Mr. Chansley

moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence on the basis of newly discovered evidence

and ineffective assistance of his plea counsel. ECF No. 117. The Court denied his motion as

unmeritorious. See Chansley, 2023 WL 4637312, at *16. In evaluating that motion, the Court

noted its disappointment that “Mr. Chansley has recanted the contrition displayed at his

sentencing.” Id. at *16.

         In June 2024, the Supreme Court decided Fischer v. United States. 144 S. Ct. 2176 (2024).

Fischer held that “[t]o prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that

the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records,

documents, objects, or . . . other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.” Id. at 2190.




1
  See, e.g., Sent’g Hr’g at 32:23–33:4 (“So I had to come to terms with the fact that I was in solitary confinement
because of me, because of my decision. I broke the law, and if I believe in freedom, if I believe in law and order, if I
believe in responsibility and accountability, then that means that I should do what Gandhi would do and take
responsibility even and especially when it incriminates me. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. That’s what men of honor
do.”), ECF No. 111; id. at 34:25–35:5 (“I am truly, truly repentant for my actions, because repentance is not just saying
you’re sorry. Repentance is apologizing and then moving in the exact opposite direction of the sin that you committed.
And that’s what I’ve been trying to do ever since I realized the magnitude of my error and the magnitude of my
mistake.”); id. at 35:16–18 (“[I]n retrospect, I would do everything differently on January 6. In all honesty, I would
do everything differently.”).



                                                           2
In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the D.C. Circuit that had accorded that

provision a broader reading.2

         Now, Mr. Chansley has moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for the

return of his property seized pursuant to a search warrant in connection with this case. Def.’s Mot.,

ECF No. 130. The government filed an opposition, Gov. Opp’n, ECF No. 139, and Mr. Chansley

filed a reply, Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 140. This motion is now ripe. According to the government,

the property includes a spear and a helmet sported by Mr. Chansley on January 6th. Opp’n ¶ 15.

The government has not sought forfeiture of any of these items. Id. ¶ 14. It argues that it would

like to retain the evidence until it is assured of the finality of this case. Id. ¶ 15. It does not contest,

and thereby concedes, Mr. Chansley’s argument that venue is proper. See Def.’s Mot. 4–5.

                                        II.     LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 41(g) provides that “[a] person aggrieved . . . by the deprivation of property may move

for the property’s return.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). This motion is available even if the property

was seized lawfully. In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603, 606 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In determining

how to evaluate such a motion, the D.C. Circuit has looked to the 1989 Advisory Committee Notes

to this provision:

         No standard is set forth . . . to govern the determination of whether property should
         be returned to a person aggrieved either by an unlawful seizure or by deprivation
         of the property . . . . If the United States has a need for the property in an
         investigation or prosecution, its retention of the property generally is reasonable.
         But, if the United States’ legitimate interests can be satisfied even if the property is
         returned, continued retention of the property would become unreasonable.




2
 However, the Supreme Court noted that whether Fischer’s § 1512(c)(2) conviction will stand remains an open
question. See Fischer, 144 S. Ct. at 2190; accord id. at 2194 (Jackson, J., concurring); see also United States v. Brock,
94 F.4th 39, 47 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2024).



                                                           3
United States v. Rayburn House Off. Bldg., Room 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515, 497 F.3d 654,

663 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) advisory committee’s note to 1989

amendments).

       The Circuit has also explained that after trial “courts may rightfully refuse to return claimed

property when it falls into one of three categories: (1) the property involved is contraband; (2) the

property involved is [subject to] forfeit[ure] pursuant to statute; or (3) the property involved is

subject to government retention pending termination of the trial.” United States v. Farrell, 606

F.2d 1341, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see also United States v. Brown, 185 F. Supp. 3d 79, 82 (D.D.C.

2016) (“The D.C. Circuit has instructed that ‘the district court has both the jurisdiction and the

duty” to ensure the return “to the defendant [of] property seized from him in the investigation but

which is not alleged to be stolen, contraband, or otherwise forfeitable, and which is not needed, or

is no longer needed, as evidence.’” (quoting United States v. Wilson, 540 F.2d 1100, 1101 (D.C.

Cir. 1976)). Still, “[t]he general rule is that seized property, other than contraband, should be

returned to its rightful owner once the criminal proceedings have terminated.” Farrell, 606 F.2d

at 1343 (quoting United States v. LaFatch, 565 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir. 1977)); see also United States

v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 303 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (observing “that the party from whom materials

are seized in the course of a criminal investigation retains a protectible property interest in the

seized materials”). Indeed, “it is fundamental to the integrity of the criminal justice process that

property involved in the proceeding, against which no Government claim lies, be returned

promptly to its rightful owner.” Wilson, 540 F.2d at 1103.

                                     III.   DISCUSSION

       Pursuant to Rule 41(g), the Court concludes that the government must return Mr.

Chansley’s property.




                                                 4
         The government has failed to establish that it still needs Mr. Chansley’s property as

evidence. It asserts that it “should and must retain actual evidence of a crime where, as here, the

defendant pled guilty to a crime that he may contest given the decision in Fischer.” Opp’n ¶ 15;

see also id. (noting the government’s wish is “to continue to hold the property as evidence until”

“finality in the appellate process”). But it is not clear how Mr. Chansley could contest his

conviction, as he has been sentenced, abandoned his direct appeal, and seen his § 2255 motion

denied. But even if the government may need to reprove Mr. Chansley’s guilt, the government

has not explained why it would need his property. Chansley “was the face of the riot at the United

States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Chansley, 2023 WL 4637312, at *1. Images of him at the

Capitol on that day abound. Chansley, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 155 (“His actions that day were

extensively photographed and recorded.”). As there is voluminous video and photo evidence of

Mr. Chansley’s conduct, his property is of little utility for an investigation or prosecution and “the

United States’ legitimate interests can be satisfied even if the property is returned.” Rayburn

House Off. Bldg., 497 F.3d at 663 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) advisory committee’s note to

1989 amendments).3 The Court therefore finds that the retention of Mr. Chansley’s property would

be unreasonable.

         The government’s fallback position is to sidestep the Rule 41(g) inquiry altogether by

suggesting it may eventually seek civil forfeiture. Although Mr. Chansley was arrested three-and-

a-half years ago, Min. Entry (Jan. 9, 2021), the government has never sought forfeiture of the

property involved in the Capitol siege. Opp’n ¶ 14. Nonetheless, the government states that if Mr.



3
  Of course, the prosecution has an “interest” in using “the evidence of its choice,” such as a weapon used to commit
an offense. Cf. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 188 (1997). The government may well have been able to
articulate a compelling reason to retain Mr. Chansley’s property. But when the government has vast amounts of other
evidence, it cannot defeat a Rule 41(g) motion simply by asserting its desire to retain the evidence without giving any
reasons.



                                                          5