World

DOJ forced to return QAnon shaman’s weapons by judge’s ruling

Advertisement

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Jacob Chansley, also known as the “QAnon Shaman,” will regain possession of the makeshift spear and horned helmet he carried as he stormed the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021, riot with other supporters of then-President Donald Trump. The Department of Justice failed to provide a compelling reason for holding onto Chansley’s property, according to Judge Royce Lamberth’s order in Washington, D.C., federal court.

Chansley, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and was sentenced to 41 months in prison in November 2021, has since been released early and has moved in with his mother. The DOJ had sought to retain possession of Chansley’s belongings due to his legal challenges to his conviction and sentence, aiming to ensure finality in the appellate process for this and other cases.

Despite expressing remorse at his criminal sentencing, Chansley’s unconventional appearance and support for the QAnon conspiracy theory made him a symbolic figure of the Capitol riot. He was among the first rioters to enter the Capitol building on January 6, disrupting Congress’s confirmation of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory and forcing lawmakers to evacuate for hours.

In his ruling, Judge Lamberth emphasized that extensive video and photo evidence of Chansley’s actions rendered his property of little investigative value to the DOJ. Chansley’s unique attire, including horns, a bearskin headdress, and red, white, and blue face paint, distinguished him during the riot, leading to his nickname as the “QAnon Shaman.”

The DOJ has filed charges against nearly 1,500 defendants involved in the Capitol riot, with Chansley’s case drawing significant attention due to his flamboyant appearance and connection to the QAnon conspiracy theory. The judge’s decision to return Chansley’s belongings highlights the complex legal and symbolic ramifications of the Capitol riot and its aftermath. The ruling raises questions about the handling of evidence in high-profile criminal cases and the broader implications for individuals involved in politically-motivated violence.

Advertisement

Related Articles

Back to top button