JavaScript is not available.

Aug 3, 2021

Next Jan. 6 plea deal on the calendar is for John Lolos, who first came to law enforcement's attention when he was kicked off his flight home from DC on Jan. 8 for "continuously yelling, 'Trump 2020!'" per charging docs. This is a misdemeanor-only case s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2046

206

Lolos is pleading guilty to parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building, a misdemeanor with a max sentence of 6 mos in jail — this is the most common charge we've seen in plea deals so far, and the other three misdemeanors he's charged with will be dropped

Lolos tells Mehta that he can pay the restitution in full now, so he doesn't agree with a part of the deal that requires him to submit info about his finances to the US attorney's office — prosecutor says that's not negotiable, and Lolos says he'll continue with the plea

(Prosecutor tells the judge that Lolos' lawyer raised this issue during negotiations and the govt made clear this was a required part of the deal)

Lolos' plea deal also includes a partial cooperation agreement, that he agrees to speak with law enforcement. Lolos says he thought he already did that, and notes the FBI interviewer questioned him "very rudely" — prosecutor says yes, the interview already happened

Lolos' next issue is he says the statement of facts about him going into the Capitol is accurate, but he wants it known for the record that while he was inside, a police officer motioned to him and said "come in, come in" — prosecutor says that is *not* part of the plea deal

8:23 PM · Aug 4, 2021

Bookmark

Lolos says he just wants that known, but prosecutor makes clear that he can't have it both ways — that if Lolos wants to renegotiate what's part of the record in his plea deal, they've got to end this and go back to the table. Lolos is now in a breakout room with his lawyer

The hearing is back on — Lolos' lawyer Edward MacMahon Jr. says his client is not trying to change the statement of facts, and wants to proceed with the plea hearing, maybe will raise his version of events at sentencing

Mehta gives this whole exchange a lot of room to unfold because, as he notes, by pleading guilty Lolos is giving up the right to raise this kind of defense to the charges (aka the idea that a police officer invited him in)

Mehta goes over penalties Lolos faces, and brings up supervised release, which govt/defense indicate doesn't apply here. Lolos begins to ask if that has to do with him being searched multiple times at the airport and his lawyer swiftly tells him to stop talking, it's not relevant

Lolos seems to express some concern when Mehta explains to him that although he's agreed to pay $500 in restitution, the decision about restitution is ultimately in the judge's discretion. But after the judge goes over it again, they move on without an objection from Lolos

Mehta is reciting standard language about possibility of Lolos giving up rights by pleading guilty to a crime, like voting/gun ownership, and Lolos' lawyer asks if the judge can make that clear those aren't affected by a misdemeanor plea, since Lolos might have issue with that

Mehta reframes it, and asks if Lolos understands that there may be certain rights implicated by his plea, and Lolos says he does — "I would still like to vote and own a firearm," he adds