WASHINGTON (KNWA/KFTA) — After his January 23 conviction on eight federal charges for his actions during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Richard “BigO” Barnett filed a pair of motions, seeking an acquittal or a new trial.

The government filed a 58-page response on March 5, noting and explaining its opposition to those requests, stating that “all of his allegations and arguments are meritless.” It asked the court to deny both motions.

The defense motion for a new trial alleged that “justice requires a new trial,” and it stated that “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.” It also said that the prosecution “surprised the defense” by performing two demonstrations of Barnett’s “Hike ‘N Strike,” a walking stick with a built-in 950,000-volt stun gun.

The government response addressed all of the defendant’s arguments in one brief and noted that some points raised were “already considered and rejected” by the court, both before and during the trial.

“Richard Barnett was aware of the significance of January 6, 2021, feared that the United States would be overtaken by communism if President-Elect Biden became president, and prepared to take action to prevent that from happening. On January 6, 2021, Barnett followed through on this preparation.

He invaded the U.S. Capitol building while carrying a dangerous stun device, penetrated the offices of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, stole government property, threatened law enforcement officers with violence, interfered with their efforts to quell the riot, and obstructed Congress’s official proceeding to certify the results of the presidential election.”

Government’s opposition to defendant’s post-verdict motions, USA vs. Richard Barnett, March 5

The response continued by citing Barnett’s belief that the results of the 2020 election were “illegitimate,” and said that he prepared for weeks in advance “to fight against this threat.” It also noted that Barnett made multiple statements after the 2020 presidential election, both in person and on social media, indicating “his willingness to engage in violence to achieve his political goals.”

“I came into this world kicking and screaming, covered in someone else’s blood,” it quoted Barnett saying. “I’m not afraid to go out the same way.”

The response added that Barnett’s own testimony at trial indicated that he viewed those supporting certification of the election results as “his enemy.” The government said that he also made posts demonstrating his “specific knowledge of the Congressional certification scheduled for January 6, 2021,” as well as his intent to disrupt it.

Barnett shared a promotional flyer online for an event titled “Operation Occupy the Capitol.” The government also noted that Barnett brought his stun gun and cannisters of pepper spray to the Capitol.

The filing continued by documenting Barnett’s activities on that day, including him filming his progress as he pushed into the Capitol rotunda with a crowd. Once he reached Speaker Pelosi’s office suite, the prosecution said that police officers ordered him to leave but he did not comply.

Barnett eventually left the building, but stayed on the Capitol grounds, conducting interviews and giving speeches. At one point, he used a bullhorn to speak to the crowd, according to court documents.

“We took back our house,” he told them. “And I took Nancy Pelosi’s office!”

The government’s response continued by addressing the court’s burden in potentially ruling for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, quoting case law that said it may be granted “only when there is no evidence upon which a reasonable mind might find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” It added that the court must consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government” to make this determination.

It went on to address Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the defendant’s motion for a new trial, noting that the court should grant this “only in those limited circumstances where a ‘serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.'” It explained that previous case law ruled that the court must weigh the evidence and evaluate the credibility of witnesses in making that decision.

The prosecution then presented its specific argument to reject the defense motions, citing a multitude of statutes and other cases over many pages, addressing each of Barnett’s charges in detail.

“The defendant’s disagreement with the evidence and testimony does not justify a new trial,” was the title of one of these subsections. Another is “there is no evidence that any government witness committed perjury.”

It also stated that the Hike ‘N Strike demonstration was authorized by the court, and that the defense made no objection to it at the time.

“Defense counsel expressed the opposite of surprise,” the response observed. “Instead, he responded that he expected that ‘we’d be seeing it again.'”

The filing concluded by reiterating its request that the court deny both of Barnett’s post-verdict motions.

Update: Barnett’s attorneys filed a motion asking the court to strike the government’s response, citing a rule that limits the length of such responses. The defense added that it expected the state to file two separate responses to its motions.

Instead, the government combined its two responses into a single omnibus filing. On March 7, Judge Christopher R. Cooper granted a prosecution motion for leave to file excess pages.