United States v. Rivera
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
2022 WL 2239800
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
On January 6, 2021, crowds stormed the United States Capitol Building in hopes of preventing congressional ratification of the 2020 election results. Jesus Rivera (defendant) and his wife were part of that crowd. On January 7, 2021, while Rivera and his wife were driving from Washington, DC, to their Florida home, Rivera’s wife broadcast an Instagram-live video to her followers describing her experience. Rivera interjected numerous times, offering factual corrections and encouraging his wife to omit certain details. However, Rivera did not correct his wife when she said that the couple had pushed through the crowd to record footage at the capitol and that, upon reaching the capitol, they had seen that barriers had been destroyed and that the crowd had the police pushed back against the doors. When Rivera was charged with trespass, disorderly conduct, and violent entry, the government sought to introduce the wife’s livestream statements as evidence that Rivera knew his entry into the capitol was unauthorized. The district court granted the government’s motion to admit the statements, concluding that the statements qualified as an adopted admission by Rivera and were therefore not hearsay. The court issued an opinion explaining its conclusion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 911,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 997 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
