Daniel Rodriguez

Responding to President Trump’s call to peacefully assemble on January 6^th, 2021, Daniel traveled to Washington, DC to protest what he firmly believed to be a fraudulent 2020 election.  Following President Trump’s remarks to the assembled group of patriots near the White House, Daniel walked with the crowd toward the Capitol building. 

When asked why he went to Washington, DC, Daniel stated, “Trump called us.  Trump called us to D.C…he’s the leader of our country, and he’s calling for help…”  Daniel also stated that because of his childhood, he often felt that President Trump was a sort of surrogate father.

Charging documents state that Daniel and others made their way to the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol Building.  The documents further state that Daniel was handed the Taser of DC Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone, and used it on him before the crowd entered the Capitol itself.  While inside, it is alleged that Daniel damaged windows, furniture, doors, and stole some items.  In all, Daniel was charged with eight counts, and pleaded guilty to four.

At the sentencing hearing, Daniel and his attorneys brought a motion to suppress the interview that agents had with Daniel after his arrest on March 31, claiming that he (Daniel) did not wish to be questioned and wanted to remain silent, but the officers continued with their interview anyway. 

The crux of Daniel’s motion to suppress was a portion of the March 31 videotaped interview by federal agents Nate Elias and Enrique Armenta. During that interview, Daniel appears to have admitted to the assault on Officer Fanone.

Here are relevant portions of the videotaped interview:

“[Y]ou think that’s why we’re — you’re here today? Just because you climbed the scaffolding?” Elias asked Daniel.

“No,” Daniel responded. “You guys kind of told me. That I assaulted a officer.”

“And you don’t want to talk about that?” Agent Armenta said, according to the transcript.

“No,” Daniel said, according to the first (and contested) transcript of the conversation.

Agent Elias then said: “Because I tell you what. Everybody else is going to talk about that.”

“Yeah. I’m pretty ashamed,” Daniel said as he shook his head. 

Daniel’s lawyers argued that he had “unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to silence” at this point in the interview and at that point questioning should have ended consistent with the defendant’s constitutional rights.

However, as U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson discussed in detail at the sentencing hearing, the transcript doesn’t tell the whole story.“I have watched the video over well over 50 times, probably more than 100 times,” Jackson said. “I have never heard the word no.”

Noting that she had a program installed on her laptop so that she could hear the audio more clearly, Jackson said that an “n” sound from Daniel and a shake of the head — “and not a very vigorous one at that,” she observed — did not amount to an unambiguous and unequivocal assertion of thedefendant’s Miranda rights.

Federal prosecutors filed court papers prior to the hearing which teed up the judge’s analysis.  They asserted that the video showed the defendant making an unintelligible “n” sound as the next question came rolling his way.

Jackson issued her ruling after a painstaking, second-by-second review of this part of the interview, which was also played at the hearing. Jackson narrated each statement, describing details that weren’t captured by the transcript, such as head shakes, crosstalk, and the pauses — or lack thereof — between the questions and answers.

“While you can see the defendant shake his head before Agent Elias starts to speak, Agent Elias has already begun his comments when you can hear the defendant start to say something at the same time,” Jackson said. “You hear a sound, the government now identifies it as something that begins with ‘n,’ but what he is saying and what Elias is saying at 7:55:03 overlap. They overlap again at 7:55:09,” Jackson added, citing the timestamps on the video.

“Only nine seconds at the most elapsed between the end of Agent Elias saying ‘You want to talk about that’ and the defendant saying he is ashamed,” Jackson said.

Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee, also went through an extensive analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the landmark Miranda v. Arizona case, the benchmark in determining a defendant’s Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

“There is considerable ambiguity over what he’s feeling negative about,” Jackson said. “It was entirely reasonable to draw the impression that what he was communicating was ‘I am distressed about talking about this, I can’t believe I have gotten myself into this position, what have I done, I am so ashamed,’ as opposed to ‘I do not want to answer any more questions.’ But does he invoke his right to remain silent? It’s ambiguous at best.”

When asked what he would tell Fanone now, Daniel sobbed, then muttered, with his head down: “I’m sorry he had to go through that. It’s not right that he had to suffer like that. And it puts fear in him and worrying about his life. He was scared for his own life and thought about having to kill us. And he was willing to die because of his beliefs, too.I did what I thought was right,” Daniel, who called himself “an American Supremacist,” said of his actions.

Fanone, who addressed the court, said he didn’t, “give a sh*t” about Daniel. “He ceased to exist a long time ago.My career, my friends and my faith in the justice system” were extinguished in the January 6 attack, Fanone said.

In the end, Judge Jackson sentenced Daniel to twelve-and-a-half years in prison. 

The mainstream media and some federal officials routinely label anyone associated with the January 6^th protest as a “domestic terrorist” or “insurrectionist” despite the fact that the term “domestic terrorist” is not defined in the Patriot Act.  This allows them to destroy Constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial.  Likewise, no one associated with January 6^th has ever been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection.