As you have probably heard, Representative Cynthia McKinney may be in legal trouble for scuffling with a Capitol police officer when she entered a Congressional office building last week.
The key facts are still a bit murky, but based on news reports, the story seems to go something like this: McKinney entered the building and bypassed the metal detectors, as members of the House of Representatives are permitted to do. The Capitol Hill police officer guarding the entrance didn’t recognize McKinney, however, so he asked McKinney to stop. He asked three times but she didn’t stop; when the officer chased after her and grabbed her, she hit him.
Will the U.S. Attorney’s Office charge McKinney with a federal crime? If she is charged, I gather the offense would be a misdemeanor simple assault under 18 U.S.C. 111(a) or 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(5). I don’t know who makes these sorts of calls within the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or what kinds of cases the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. tends to pursue. As a result, I can only offer amateurish speculation. My amateurish speculation, for what it’s worth, is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office will decline prosecution. Three major reasons: First, McKinney was apparently on official business as a member of Congress at the time, and was well within her rights to enter the buidling without passing through the metal detectors. Second, the officer apparently wasn’t hurt. Third, the story is already a media circus, and will only become much more of a circus if McKinney is charged.
What happened is obviously unfortunate, and doesn’t make Rep. McKinney look very good, but in context I tend to doubt charges will be brought. If any readers have more informed views of this, please consider posting a comment.
It was said that she flatly refused to wear the pin that would have alerted the officer that she was a member of Congress.
I don’t think she should be charged because a defense win would be likely. The defense would argue that as a member of Congress, she was privileged to pass through security; and indeed she passed through several times a day. When she was grabbed, she wasn’t sure it was a security guard, and with a reasonable fear for her safety (afer all, she should never have been stopped), she punched back. She feels awful about it now, of course, but she reacted as anyone who was wrongfully grabbed would’ve reacted.
Do I buy that story? No. But does it raise a reasonble doubt? I think so.
Mike,
That’s plausible. Are you assuming the case is in front of a judge or a jury?
Orin, I’m not sure it would matter. If a judge properly applied the beyond a reasonable doubt standand (but see the sentencing discussion, below), I think he would give her a walk. She had an objectively reasonable basis for thinking that anyone touching her was threatening her. If anything, she might argue that as a member of Congress, she especially sensitive about her safety.
Of course, if testimony established that she paused, saw the officer, and then punched him, my opinion would change. But on the “facts” the media has given us, I think she sould walk.
CNN reported tonight: “U.S. Capitol Police on Monday asked a federal prosecutor to approve an arrest warrant for Rep. Cynthia McKinney…. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein said he was reviewing the merits of the case….McKinney’s attorney told CNN that… “They are doing no more than any other law enforcement agency does, and that is, simply to file with the prosecutors the necessary paperwork for them to further investigate the case.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/03/mckinney.scuffle.ap/index.html
Pingback: ambivalent bits
I agree — this case should not be prosecuted for both legal and political reasons.
The woman has already been judged by those that matter.
Mike,
I have to say the idea that a congressional member – inside a house office building and after being called on by a security officer to stop three times – would feel threatened by someone grabbing her arm is preposterous. Not a lot of hoodlums roaming the halls of congress (depending on your definition of hoodlum, I suppose).
For all of the reasons Orin stated, I don’t expect criminal charges to be filed. However, if they were, no judge or jury would find McKinney was acting in self-defense.
God help her if she took the stand because there is scarcely a member of congress who would provide such rich fodder for impeachment if she tried to say this was an isolated incident/misunderstanding. She has the reputation on Capital Hill of being an absolute monster to security, facility personnel, and her own staff. My understanding is that incidents like this (though not of a physical nature) are legion.
Pingback: Discourse.net
I would be surprised if she were actually charged. I have worked at a state legislature for several years, and while of course there are important cultural differences, it is a something of a big deal here that our capitol police know who the legislators are. A capitol police officer here who grabbed a legislator, even a non-lapel-pin-wearing legislator, would be subject to quite a lot of criticism by other legislators since it is the legislators, not the capitol police, who are in charge; a perspective which the legislators feel quite strongly.
I can’t help but suspect that many legislators in Washington feel exactly the same way – even if they don’t want to say so out loud – and I suspect that the DC capitol police knows this and is smart enough not to try and get into an extended fight with a legislator.
So I think this will be smoothed over and no charges will be filed. Obviously, however, it would be much easier if McKinney could come up with some half-hearted apology in which she “regrets the unfortunate misunderstanding.”
No charge. I screen a lot of cases. All the usual caveats aside (don’t have all the facts, haven’t interviewed the officer, etc) I would have to say that a charge is a bigger headache than dealing with angry cops. That’s not always true, but in this case I would have to say that the equities lie in not charging. It seems to me that there is a subtext here: the cops are angry at the way they were treated. I’ve seen it before. And it tends to make the case worse rather than better.
In celebrity cases, a question I always like to see answered is: “Would an ordinary person be prosecuted for that same crime?” Here, if some citizen who had a pass but didn’t show it had hit a policeman, would that person be brought to trial? (a different question, note, from being arrested, or even charged)
I agree that the US Attorney’s Office will decline. The facts of this case aren’t that complex. If the USAO had wanted to go forward, they would have already sought the warrant. The public statement that the USAO is “reviewing” the matter is simply a way to allow the police to save face and to show that McKinney is not receiving any special treatment.
Is the Congresswoman immune from arrest, pursuant to Const. Art. I, sct. 6? Or can she be later arrested for a crime committed while in transit to the House? Alternatively, is it alleged that she “breached the peace”?
They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned