WASHINGTON (KNWA/KFTA) — After being found guilty on eight federal charges after his actions during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Gravette’s Richard “BigO” Barnett has filed a pair of motions seeking an acquittal or a new trial.
Barnett, 62, submitted two filings in federal court on February 5. The first was a motion for a new trial pursuant to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 33.
“Justice requires a new trial because over the course of Mr. Barnett’s two-week trial, all the key witnesses presented by the Government in support of the Government’s case-in-chief testified to material facts that are verifiably and objectively false. The Government also surprised the
defense by performing not one but two demonstrations of the Hike ‘N Strike before the jury after the Defense was led to believe that no demonstration would occur.”
USA vs. Barnett, Defense Rule 33 Motion for a New Trial, February 5
The second motion was made pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29. This motion cited a host of reasons the defense felt warranted an acquittal for Barnett, including the addition of a non-indicted charge to jury instructions “over attorney objections,” the government’s being “deficient in relevant, honest evidence for any charge” and two separate demonstrations before the jury of a stun gun that served to “misrepresent the non-dangerous item and to unfairly scare the jury with the sound.”
The filing added that the government “falsely called the Hike ‘N Strike a deadly weapon” and “showed no intent by Mr. Barnett to violate the law for any count.” It also said that the prosecution “declared Mr. Barnett guilty because of acts of others he knew nothing about.”
In its first new motion, the defense noted case law that reads that “relief in the form of a new trial is available when the government ‘deliberately presented a false picture of the facts.'” It continued by alleging that FBI Special Agents “provided false testimony” during the trial.
It provided specific examples of occurrences when the witnesses “knowingly” made false statements under oath. The motion also deemed one witness’ testimony “not credible” because of her inability to identify electrodes on the stun gun unless she “was coached in advance and knew what to look for.”
The filing continued by categorizing the testimony of multiple other government witnesses as “demonstrably, verifiably, and objectively false.” That motion concluded by asking the court to vacate the guilty verdicts on all charges and to grant Barnett a new trial.
The second motion requested an outright acquittal on the charges. It noted case law stating that “a court may grant a judgment of acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove all elements of a crime charged.”
The filing added that, when considering a Rule 29 motion, a court “must grant it if the jury was confused by the government’s case and engaged in speculation.” The document went through each charge, citing what it felt were government failures to show evidence or prove Barnett’s guilt.
“The government made no effort at proof that Mr. Barnett had the intent to impede law enforcement,” the motion claimed. It also deemed jury instructions “confusing” and said that the prosecution “changed the meaning and words of the indictment to salvage the government’s case.”
The motion concluded by stating that Barnett had no intent to commit any crime, had no dangerous or deadly weapon and was pushed into the building “against his will.”
It asked for an acquittal on all counts. Barnett’s sentencing is scheduled for May 3.