From the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, here's a case that turns very odd facts into some odd law. A summary:
- We begin with a defendant with unfortunate mental health issues. She decides that there is a dark conspiracy between law enforcement and casino operators, and that she must inform President Trump personally.
- She drives thousands of miles from California to Washington DC. Along the way, during further events left tragically unclear by the record, she winds up stealing someone's wallet in a Nevada casino.
- Judge Srinivasan picks up the story from there:
When her car’s GPS device marked her arrival at the White House, she parked the car, exited it, scaled two fences, ran across a courtyard, and sprinted up the stairs of the building towards the entrance, where Secret Service officers intercepted her.
However ill-conceived Jabr’s plan to attain an audience with the President may have been in its design, it was all the more unlikely to succeed because of a significant hiccup in its implementation: Jabr, it turned out, had dashed up the stairs of the wrong building. She had tried to enter the United States Treasury Building, which sits immediately adjacent to the White House.
- She is charged in federal court with violating a statute that criminalizes unlawfully entering a restricted area, namely, "the White House Complex and United States Department of Treasury Building and Grounds".
- The bench trial arrives. And, as defense counsel points out, the government has been almost as confused as the defendant. The statute in question only covers the White House grounds itself. And even though the Treasury is very close by, it's not on the White House grounds.
- 'Fair enough,' the judge opines. 'But I find her guilty of attempting to unlawfully enter the White House grounds.'
- 'No way,' the defense counters. 'You can't just modify the charge in the indictment at the end of the trial!'
- The appellate panel is unmoved. It was the defense's turn to screw up; they apparently hadn't noticed that the charge came in an information, not in an indictment. And changing the charge from 'completed crime' to 'attempt' mid-trial is totally okay when there's an information. I'm sure that's a perfectly logical rule that no prosecutor would ever dream of abusing.