WASHINGTON (AP) — An Arkansas man who propped his feet up on a desk in then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the U.S. Capitol riot was convicted on Monday of joining a mob's attack on the building two years ago.

A jury deliberated for approximately two hours before unanimously convicting Richard “Bigo” Barnett on all eight counts in his indictment, including felony charges of civil disorder and obstruction of an official proceeding.

Barnett lounging at a desk in Pelosi's office made him one of the most memorable figures from the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, the day when Congress convened a joint session to certify President Joe Biden's electoral victory.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper is scheduled to sentence Barnett on May 3. The judge agreed to let Barnett remain free on certain conditions until his sentencing.

Outside the courthouse after the verdict, Barnett vowed to appeal his conviction, calling it an "injustice.” He noted that the judge had rejected his request to move his trial from Washington to Arkansas.

“This is not a jury of my peers,” he told reporters.

Prosecutors asked the judge to jail Barnett while he awaits sentencing. Justice Department prosecutor Alison Prout said the jury concluded that Barnett took a weapon into Pelosi's office.

“We can only imagine what would have happened if (Pelosi) had been there at the time,” Prout said.

Barnett, 62, testified last Thursday that he was looking for a bathroom inside the Capitol when he unwittingly entered Pelosi’s office and encountered two news photographers. He said one of the photographers told him to “act natural,” so he leaned back in a chair and flung his legs onto the desk.

“Did it dawn on you that what you were doing could cause some trouble?” defense attorney Joseph McBride asked Barnett.

“I was just in the moment,” Barnett replied. “I’m just kind of going with the flow at this point.”

Barnett's decision to testify was “unequivocally the right one,” his lawyer told reporters after the verdict.

“He had a story that needed to be told,” McBride said. “People needed to know why he came here, what his intentions were and what he did while he was here.”

Prosecutors said Barnett had a stun gun tucked into his pants when he stormed the Capitol and invaded Pelosi’s office. Barnett was convicted of entering and remaining in restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon — a stun gun with spikes concealed within a collapsible walking stick.

Barnett took a piece of her mail and left behind a note that said, “Nancy, Bigo was here,” punctuating the message with a sexist expletive. The jury convicted of a theft charge for taking the envelope from Pelosi's office.

Before leaving Capitol grounds, Barnett used a bullhorn to give a speech to the crowd, shouting, “We took back our house, and I took Nancy Pelosi’s office!” according to prosecutors.

Videos support Barnett's testimony that a crowd pushed him into the Capitol as he approached an entrance, causing him to briefly fall to his knees as he crossed the threshold.

“We have no choice!” he shouted repeatedly as he entered the Capitol.

After police ordered him and others to leave Pelosi’s office, Barnett realized he had left his American flag behind. Body camera video captured Barnett shouting at a police officer in the Rotunda for help in retrieving the flag.

More than 940 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Jan.6 attack. Nearly 500 of them have pleaded guilty. Barnett is one of several dozen Capitol riot defendants whose case has gone to trial.

Barnett is a retired firefighter from Gravette, Arkansas. He said he regrets coming to Washington for the “Stop the Steal” rally where then-President Donald Trump addressed a crowd of supporters.

“Two years of lost life. Misery for my family,” he said.

While on house arrest last year, Barnett raised money by charging donors $100 for photos of him with his feet on a desk.

A prosecutor told jurors during the trial's opening statements that Barnett planned the trip for weeks and came prepared for violence.

McBride told jurors that Barnett was just a “crazy guy from Arkansas” who didn’t hurt anybody on Jan. 6 and couldn’t have harmed anybody with the stun gun device because it was broken that day. McBride sarcastically called it “the most famous trespass case of all time.”

Prosecutors said Barnett had a history of arming himself at political demonstrations. In July 2020, they said, a 911 caller reported that a man matching Barnett’s description had pointed a rifle at her during a “Back the Blue” rally.

“Law enforcement ultimately closed the investigation as unfounded due to unresolved apparent discrepancies in the evidence,” prosecutors wrote.

In November 2020, police were called to a “Save the Children” rally when a caller said Barnett was carrying a gun at the protest and acting suspiciously.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Appearing before a federal judge after pleading guilty to a felony charge in the deadly Capitol riot, former West Virginia lawmaker Derrick Evans expressed remorse for letting down his family and his community, saying he made a “crucial mistake."

Less than a year later, Evans is portraying himself as a victim of a politically motivated prosecution as he runs to serve in the same building he stormed on Jan. 6, 2021. Evans is now calling the Justice Department's Jan. 6 prosecutions a “miscarriage of justice" and describes himself on twitter as a “J6 Patriot."

"Some ppl have said I need to apologize and condemn #J6 if I want to win my election as the media will attack me," he tweeted recently after announcing his bid for a U.S. House seat in 2024. “I will not compromise my values or beliefs. That’s what politicians do. We need Patriots not politicians.”

Evans joins a series of Jan. 6 defendants who — when up against possible prison time in court — have expressed regret for joining the pro-Trump mob that rattled the foundations of American democracy only to strike a different tone or downplay the riot after receiving their punishment.

The very first Jan. 6 defendant to be sentenced apologized in court and then went on Fox News Channel shortly after and seemed to minimize the riot. Another defendant who called Jan. 6 “horrifying and disgusting” later donned an orange jumpsuit to play the part of a distraught prisoner in a bizarre tribute to imprisoned Capitol rioters during a conservative conference.

Some defendants have drawn ire from judges or the Justice Department for their inconsistent comments. But there’s not much the legal system can do for an adjudicated defendant. And because some conservatives hold up Jan. 6 defendants as martyrs, there's a political and possibly financial incentive for them to change their tune.

It could push judges to impose stronger punishments for rioters who haven’t yet made it to the end of their criminal cases. Even before Evans' sentencing, the judge who heard his case began questioning the sincerity of rioters' apologies after he felt duped by another defendant, saying he was “all too familiar with crocodile tears."

Before being sentenced last June to three months behind bars for a civil disorder charge, Evans said he regrets his actions every day and told Senior Judge Royce Lamberth he is a “good person who unfortunately was caught up in a moment.”

Shortly after, prosecutors wrote to the judge about several statements Evans made on a radio show and that were “inconsistent with the contrition” he showed at sentencing. When asked whether he regretted his actions, Evans said on the show that he regretted the “situation” he was in. But he said he was “never going to have regrets when it comes to standing up and doing what’s right.”

Evans said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press that he still stands behind what he said in court.

"That was my message to the judge. This is my message to the media. It’s time to tell the real story of what happened personally to me that day," he said.

Evans said he lost “almost everything” — including his job as a state delegate and time with his kids — because of his decision on Jan. 6. “How could I not regret that?” he asked. But he said he is “done being portrayed as a villain” when he is not, noting that he didn't overrun any officers and was inside the Capitol for only 10 minutes.

When determining an appropriate sentence, judges generally take into account whether defendants have taken responsibility for their actions and appear genuinely sorry. In some Jan. 6 cases, judges have faulted defendants for not appearing to show true remorse even before their punishment has been handed down.

A lawyer for Trennis Evans III, who took a swig of whiskey in a congressional conference room during the riot, told the judge in court papers that Evans was “sincerely remorseful, and duly contrite." But after Evans suggested at his November sentencing that Jan. 6 defendants were being treated unfairly — even though he said he condemned what happened that day — the judge said she didn't believe he showed "full and genuine remorse."

Months after he was ordered to serve 20 days in jail, the Texas man traveled to South Dakota to urge state lawmakers to support a resolution encouraging “the humane and fair treatment" of Jan. 6 defendants. The resolution failed by unanimous vote.

The first Jan. 6 defendant to get her punishment, Anna Morgan-Lloyd, told Lamberth that she was ashamed of the “savage display of violence” at the Capitol before he sentenced her to probation. Shortly after, however, the Indiana woman told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that people were “very polite” during the riot and that she saw “relaxed” police officers chatting with rioters.

Lamberth apparently hasn't forgotten about it. The judge wrote in court papers that he hoped another defendant's “change of heart” was sincere because his hopes were “dashed” in her case. In another case, he wrote that he "often finds it difficult to ascertain the sincerity” of Jan. 6 defendants' remorse.

“Many defendants appear sincere at sentencing, boasting of their purportedly deep shame, regret, and desire to change and be law-abiding citizens,” Lamberth wrote. “But this Court is all too familiar with crocodile tears.”

Morgan-Lloyd's attorney has said that she believes her client was genuinely remorseful, was “played" by Ingraham and sent the judge a letter after her TV interview. When contacted by The Associated Press, Morgan-Lloyd's attorney said the woman would not comment.

After he dodged prison time in his Jan. 6 case, right-wing activist Brandon Straka donned an orange jumpsuit and red MAGA cap, sat in a fake jail cell and performatively wept for a procession of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas last August. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, entered the cage and embraced Straka before they appeared to pray together.

Months earlier, with a possible jail term hanging over his head, Straka referred to Jan. 6 as “nothing more than an incredibly shameful day that had absolutely no positive attributes whatsoever.”

“I’m sorry that I was present in any way at an event that led people to feel afraid, that caused shame and embarrassment on our country, and that served absolutely no purpose other than to further tear away at the already heartbreaking divide in this country,” he wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who sentenced him to 36 months of probation.

An email seeking comment was sent to Straka, from Nebraska. He has said that the CPAC performance was meant “to provoke a reaction about political division, human rights abuses & more" and accused critics of trying to “criminalize art.”

Since his sentencing, the judge questioned whether he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea and said he could be opening himself up to prosecution for making false statements because of public comments she said seemed to contradict things he said in court.

A written statement of offense that Straka agreed was correct under his plea deal says that he yelled “Take it! Take it!” while filming others trying to take a police officer's shield. Straka later told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that he told his lawyer that he never made that comment. He suggested he admitted doing so because he was under pressure to take a deal.

___

Richer reported from Boston. Associated Press reporter Colleen Long contributed from Washington.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the Capitol riot at https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Capitol riot trial for Proud Boys leaders promised to be a historic showcase for some of the most compelling evidence of an alleged plot by far-right extremists to halt the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election.

One month into the trial, there have been plenty of fireworks, but mostly when the jury wasn’t in the courtroom.

Lawyers representing the five Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy have repeatedly sparred with U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly during breaks in testimony. At least 10 times, those lawyers have argued in vain for him to declare a mistrial.

The judge regularly admonishes lawyers for interrupting him and has threatened to hold them in contempt if it continues. Two defense lawyers at one point floated the idea of withdrawing from the case if Kelly did not rule in their favor on evidentiary matters.

The barrage of bickering has bogged down the proceedings in the federal courthouse, where the Capitol can be seen in the distance from some windows. One recent day in court, defense lawyer Norm Pattis compared the trial to visiting “Gilligan’s Island," the title and setting of the 1960s-era sitcom about a shipwrecked boat's crew and passengers.

“It was supposed to be a three-hour tour, and people were stranded together for an infinite period while they worked out their interpersonal difficulties,” Pattis quipped.

The tension in the courtroom reflects the high stakes for the Justice Department and the defendants. It's one of the most serious cases to emerge from the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio is perhaps the highest profile person to be charged so far in the assault.

The Proud Boys face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of seditious conspiracy. Acquittals on the rarely used charge — which strikes at the heart of what prosecutors say happened that day — would be a setback in the government's Jan. 6 investigation, which continues to grow two years later.

Tarrio and four lieutenants are accused of participating in a weekslong plot to keep Democrat Joe Biden out of the White House after he defeated then-President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Prosecutors say it culminated with Proud Boys mounting a coordinated assault on the Capitol alongside hundreds of other Trump supporters.

Defense lawyers say there's no evidence that the Proud Boys plotted to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6. The lawyers claim prosecutors are mischaracterizing bellicose online banter as a violent plot. They tried unsuccessfully to move the trial out of Washington, arguing that there was no way their clients could get a fair trial in front of a District of Columbia jury.

The Proud Boys trial is on a pace to last several weeks longer than last year's landmark trial for Oath Keepers group leaders and members, who were charged in a separate Jan. 6 case.

In November, a jury convicted Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and another leader of seditious conspiracy after three days of jury selection, 26 days of testimony and two days of closing arguments. A separate trial involving members of the Oath Keepers — who face a slew of charges, but not seditious conspiracy — also got underway this month.

Jury selection for the Proud Boys case lasted 12 days. After the trial's opening statements on Jan. 12, jurors have heard 16 days of testimony through Friday. Prosecutors are expected to rest their case in late February or early March before the defense team begins presenting testimony.

A dozen of the first 14 prosecution witnesses in the Proud Boys trial have been FBI agents and other law enforcement officials. Jurors also have heard testimony from a former Proud Boys member who cut a plea deal with prosecutors and a British documentary filmmaker who was embedded with the Proud Boys on Jan. 6.

Jurors are often kept waiting in the wings while defense lawyers challenge the admissibility of evidence. In one such exchange, Pattis urged Kelly to reconsider a ruling allowing prosecutors to introduce posts from the social media platform Parler.

“We’re offering you a lifeline here because we think you erred,” Pattis told the judge.

“Well, I’m offering you the lifeline of obeying my order,” Kelly responded.

Kelly has frequently scolded defense lawyers for interrupting and talking over him, warning that he could find them in contempt. At one point, lawyer Nicholas Smith interrupted the judge while the judge was chastising him for an earlier interruption.

One of Tarrio’s lawyers asked for a mistrial after a witness said that Tarrio had burned a Black Lives Matter banner at a protest in Washington during a December 2020 demonstration by Trump supporters.

Tarrio was arrested two days before the Jan. 6 riot, charged with vandalizing the banner and ordered to leave the city. Kelly ruled that prosecutors could discuss the vandalism, but not specific details about the banner. Prosecutors allege Tarrio remained in command of the Proud Boys on the ground on Jan. 6 even though he wasn't there.

Carmen Hernandez, a lawyer for Proud Boys chapter leader Zachary Rehl, has repeatedly moved for mistrials, including when she accused a prosecutor of using inflammatory and misleading allegations in his opening statement. Hernandez asked for a mistrial after jurors saw violent videos of Proud Boys street fighting at rallies before Jan. 6.

“It wouldn’t be a day in this trial without a mistrial motion,” said Kelly, who denied her request.

At least one juror may have sent a signal about the sluggish pace of the trial.

J. Daniel Hull, one of Biggs’ lawyers, told the judge on Jan. 19 that he saw a juror nodding off that morning. In response, the judge told lawyers that “focusing their presentations might help that issue.”

The rancor started before the jury was even sworn in.

A day before the trial started, Hernandez said she felt compelled to withdraw from the case if the judge allowed prosecutors to show a particular video as evidence. Smith, who represents Proud Boys chapter leader Ethan Nordean, followed up with a similar comment about withdrawing if the judge didn't rule in his favor on an evidentiary matter.

Pattis, a Connecticut-based lawyer who represents Proud Boys organizer Joe Biggs, was briefly sidelined from the case after a judge in his home state suspended his license to practice law for six months. The decision stemmed from Pattis’ handling of confidential documents during his representation of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a civil lawsuit. Kelly allowed Pattis to rejoin the trial after opening statements once an appeals court postponed his suspension.

The judge didn't bring jurors into court on Feb. 6 so the lawyers could argue about the relevance of messages that Proud Boys posted on the Telegram platform. Pattis warned that the Telegram evidence alone could add two weeks to the trial “if we're not careful.”

“I jokingly told my office I hope to be home by Easter today at the rate things are going," Pattis added.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the Capitol riot at https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege