D.C. police Lt. Shane Lamond could provide “very important” and exculpatory testimony indicating Tarrio and the Proud Boys “told police exactly where they were going to be” before their events in Washington, including the Jan. 6 demonstrations supporting President Donald Trump, Tarrio’s attorneys Sabino Jauregui and Nayib Hassan said at a pretrial hearing. There can be no conspiracy to overthrow the government, pertaining to the charges against Tarrio and others, if they were openly telling police their plans, Jauregui said.
The lieutenant, a 22-year veteran in the intelligence branch, was put on leave in February amid an investigation into whether he had improper contacts with Tarrio. Details of those contacts have not been divulged, though Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) has said they involve the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Lamond’s job in 2020 was to gather information from protesters before actions including social justice demonstrations and marches supporting Trump, which the Proud Boys joined. Activists complained that D.C. police enjoyed a cozy relationship with the right-wing group, but department officials have said officers were trying to keep warring sides apart.
A D.C. police spokesman declined to comment on the matter, citing the ongoing federal investigation.
Lamond’s attorney, Mark E. Schamel, said in a statement that his client “has dedicated his life to fighting the illegal conduct that occurred on January 6th and is adamantly opposed to those who stoke fear and hatred and denounces the violent conduct of all those who supported the insurrection and attacked our city and nation on January 6th.”
The statement adds that Lamond’s “decorated career has been to protect this city and this nation and he has never done anything to assist the criminals who attacked our democracy on January 6th.”
Tarrio, of Miami, was not in the District the day of the riot and has denied wrongdoing or that his group planned to commit violence that day. Prosecutors allege that he guided activities from Baltimore as Proud Boys members mustered and coordinated the movements of as many as 200 or 300 people around the Capitol on Jan. 6, including several who the government says spurred and led a mob that stormed the building and forced the evacuation of lawmakers.
Scores of police officers were injured and five people died during or in the immediate aftermath of the riot, which was fueled by Trump supporters angered by his false claims that the election was stolen.
Lamond could support Tarrio and four co-defendants’ claims of innocence from criminally conspiring to obstruct Congress confirmation of the 2020 election or prevent Joe Biden’s inauguration by force, Jauregui said.
But at 5:33 a.m. on Friday, weeks before jury selection is set to start Dec. 19, Lamond’s attorney emailed saying the lieutenant may be unavailable because of the threat of incriminating himself, Jauregui said. Lamond’s attorney confirmed he sent the email.
“We are hearing at the very last minute, all of a sudden, the government is telling defense counsel for Mr. Lamond that they are looking into him for obstructing the investigation for Mr. Tarrio. They have known this for six months,” Jauregui said. “This is a tactical decision. They are pressuring [Lamond] because they cannot prove at trial there was a conspiracy … How can there be sedition if the Proud Boys are informing law enforcement of their plans on Jan. 6?”
Attorneys for co-defendants Zachary Rehl, Joe Biggs, and Ethan Nordean echoed the criticism, alleging that while Lamond could be a “lynch-pin” witness for all defendants, U.S. prosecutors or FBI agents have approached other defense witnesses with similar “threats.” One was approached outside the presence of her attorney, and another was later reassured by prosecutors that the suggestion of charges against them was “inflated,” the defense attorneys said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Kenerson categorically denied the accusations, and said defendants have known information about Lamond since August.
“The allegation that the government has somehow pressured witnesses, threatened witnesses, gone to witnesses when they were represented by counsel without counsel present, all of that is just categorically false,” Kenerson said. “The idea there is just now the possibility of a Fifth Amendment privilege [against self-incrimination issue] is completely belied” by the record.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly did not act immediately on defense requests to withhold identities of witnesses from prosecutors until the eve of trial, or to press U.S. prosecutors to grant Lamond immunity to testify. Kelly called the defense accusations “a shot across the bow” of the government as both sides prepare for trial and said he would consider any requests from defendants for relief or to penalize prosecutors promptly.
The arguments in court both previewed strategies and arguments likely to be raised in the Proud Boys trial, and echoed defense complaints of witness intimidation by prosecutors in the recently completed Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy trial of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four others convicted of federal charges Tuesday.
At Rhodes’s trial, defense attorneys objected that prosecutors criminally charged two senior leaders close to him during the run-up to trial after they were identified as defense witnesses. Another Oath Keepers member called as a defense witness invoked the Fifth Amendment on the stand and refused to testify, although one of the indicted senior members waived his right and did testify.
