1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DANEAN MACANDREW,

Defendant

Criminal Action No. 21-730 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

(December 27, 2022)

This criminal matter is set for a bench trial on January 10, 2023. For her actions at the 

insurrection of January 6, 2021, Defendant Danean MacAndrew is charged by information with 

four misdemeanors. Defendant has moved in limine to preclude: (1) all “general” evidence 

regarding the events of January 6, 2021; (2) any social media content that she posted after January 

6, 2021; and (3) any social media content “unrelated” to January 6, 2021 including, but not limited 

to, those in which she expresses her political or religious beliefs or opinions regarding COVID19. Defendant’s first two evidentiary objections fail. Because the Government has represented 

that it will not introduce any posts in this third category, Defendant’s final evidentiary objection 

is presently moot. 

Upon consideration of the briefing,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record, 

1

 The Court’s consideration has focused on: 

• The Government’s Statemet [sic] of Facts in support of its Criminal Complaint, ECF No. 

1-1; 

• Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude (1) General Evidence of the Events of January 

6th; (2) Social Media Statements by Defendant After January 6th; and (3) Social Media 

Unrelated to January 6th, ECF No. 35 (“Motion” or “Mot.”); and 

• The Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence, ECF 

No. 39 (“Opp.”). 

Defendant did not file a reply in support of her Motion.

In an exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that oral argument would not be helpful 

in the resolution of the Motion.
2

the Court shall DENY IN PART AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART Defendant’s 

[35] Motion in Limine to Exclude (1) General Evidence of the Events of January 6th; (2) Social 

Media Statements by Defendant After January 6th; and (3) Social Media Unrelated to January 6th. 

The Court shall admit general evidence and social media statements by Defendant made after 

January 6, 2021. Because the Government has assured the Court that it will not introduce social 

media statements related to Defendant’s “political opinions, religious beliefs, or opinions about 

COVID-19,” Defendant’s third evidentiary objection is denied without prejudice. Should the 

Government seek to admit such exhibits during trial, Defendant may renew this objection at that 

time.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant is charged by information with: (1) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted 

Building, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); (2) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a 

Restricted Building or Grounds, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); (3) Disorderly Conduct in a 

Capitol Building, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D); and (4) Parading, Demonstrating, or 

Picketing in a Capitol Building, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G). Before continuing to 

the merits of Defendant’s evidentiary arguments, the Court pauses to address this matter’s factual 

background. 

A. Certification of the 2020 Presidential Election and Capitol Riot

The Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that, after the members 

of the Electoral College “meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and VicePresident,” they “shall sign and certify [their votes], and transmit [them] sealed to the seat of 

government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” U.S. Const. amend. XII. 

The Vice President of the United States, as President of the Senate, must then, “in the presence of 
3

the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates[,], and the votes shall then be 

counted.” Id. To count the votes and “declar[e] the result” of the Electoral College, federal law 

mandates that “Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting 

of the electors” and that “[t]he Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the 

House at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day.” 3 U.S.C. §§ 15-16. 

As the Stateme[n]t of Facts, explains, pursuant to the Constitution and federal law, 

Congress convened in a joint session at 1:00 PM on January 6, 2021, to count the votes of the 

Electoral College and certify the results of the 2020 Presidential Election, which had taken place 

on November 3, 2020. See ECF No. 1-1 at 1. With then-Vice President Michael R. Pence 

presiding, proceedings began and continued until 1:30 PM, when the United States House of 

Representatives and the United States Senate adjourned to separate chambers within the Capitol

to debate and consider an objection to the Electoral College vote from the State of Arizona. Id. 

Vice President Pence continued to preside in the Senate chamber. Id. 

Shortly before noon, then-President Donald J. Trump took the stage at a rally of his 

supporters staged just south of the White House. Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 17 (D.C. Cir. 

2021). Then-President Trump declared that the election was “rigged” and “stolen” and urged the 

crowd to “demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been 

lawfully slated.” Id. at 18 (cleaned up). During and after then-President Trump’s speech, a mass 

of attendees marched on the Capitol. See id. 

As they gathered outside the Capitol, the crowd faced temporary and permanent barricades 

and Capitol Police positioned to prevent unauthorized entry to the Capitol. ECF 1-1 at 1. Shortly

after 2:00 p.m., “crowd members forced entry into the Capitol building, including by breaking

windows and assaulting Capitol Police officers, while others in the crowd encouraged and assisted
4

those acts.” Id. These violent acts caused members of the Senate and House of Representatives

to evacuate the chambers of the Capitol and suspend the certification process of the presidential

election results. Id. The violent riot “desecrated [the Capitol], blood was shed, and several

individuals lost their lives.” Thompson, 20 F.4th at 19. All told, “[t]he events of January 6, 2021

marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.” Id. at 18-19 (footnote

omitted).

B. Defendant’s Alleged Participation

Defendant is one of nearly a thousand individuals charged with federal crimes for their 

conduct on January 6th. According to the Statemet [sic] of Facts in support of its Criminal 

Complaint, ECF No. 1-1,2 Defendant traveled to the District of Columbia to attend thenPresident Trump’s “Save America” rally. Id. at 2. At some point, Defendant made her way to 

the Capitol, entering the building itself. See id. Defendant documented her time in and around 

the Capitol on social media, remarking “I was at the Capitol 1/6. I took this video. Capitol 

Police opened the doors, welcomed us in, and stood aside as we wandered the hallways. Is this 

what an insurrection looks like?” Id. at 3. On February 22, 2021, Defendant posted a photo of a 

rioter wearing a gas mask, arguing that “we [the mob] were infiltrated. This is not MAGA.” Id. 

In a subsequent interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant admitted that she 

entered the Capitol, that “she believed she entered the [Capitol] building near where Capitol 

police officers were lined up outside,” but nevertheless believed it was lawful for her to enter the 

Capitol. Id. at 7. 

2

 “It is appropriate if not necessary to rely on other official documents for the specific factual 

allegations underlying the [] [information], as the [information] itself contains few, if any, details 

about [Defendant’s] alleged conduct.” See United States v. McHugh, 583 F Supp. 3d 1, 9 n.2 

(D.D.C. 2022) (JDB); accord United States v. Mostofsky, 579 F. Supp. 3d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2021) 

(JEB). 
5

II. DISCUSSION

A. “General” Evidence Regarding January 6, 2021

Defendant first moves to exclude what she terms “general” evidence regarding the events 

of January 6, 2021, relying exclusively on Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Mot. at 3-4. In her 

briefing, Defendant defines “general evidence” as “[d]etails about the conduct of the crowd, 

organized groups, political leaders or individuals other than Ms. MacAndrew.” Id. at 4. As 

Defendant acknowledges, the bar for relevance is low. See United States v. Foster, 986 F.2d 541, 

545 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “Evidence is relevant if [] it has any tendency to make a factor more or 

less probable than it would be without evidence[] and [] the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

As this Court has found in two cases, the size of the crowd, political leaders, and false 

allegations of voter fraud and election interference all go to intent, motive, and preparation. See 

United States v. Rivera, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 21837851, at *5-6 (D.D.C. June 17, 2022); 

United States v. Grider, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 17889149, at *10-11 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 

2022). For example, the Government must identify a cause for which Defendant demonstrated, 

Rivera, 2022 WL 1789149, at *7, and must show that Defendant specifically intended to impede 

or disrupt Congressional proceedings, Grider, 2022 WL 17829149, at *12. Statements by 

political leaders and the conduct and statements made by the mob surrounding Defendant both 

bear on Defendant’s mental state at the time of the charged offenses. See id. at *11-12. 

Although it is not generally the Court’s role to provide arguments on behalf the parties, 

the Court pauses to note that the introduction of the conduct of others in this case is neither 

prejudicial nor surprising. As the Court discussed in Grider, although the Government has not 

charged conspiracy in most January 6th cases, the collective nature of the mob likens these cases 
6

to those involving criminal conspiracies where individuals work in concert to achieve a 

collective goal––here, the disruption of Congressional proceedings. See 2022 WL 17829149, at 

*10-12. For such offenses, “the [G]overnment is usually allowed considerable leeway in 

offering evidence of other offenses to inform the jury of the background of the conspiracy 

charged, to complete the story of the crimes charged, and to help explain to the jury how the 

illegal relationship between the participants in the crime developed.” See United States v. 

Mathis, 216 F.3d 18, 26 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Indeed, prejudice only arises in these circumstances 

where there is a substantial risk that the factfinder will convict a defendant based on character 

evidence. See United States v. McGill, 815 F.3d 846, 887 (D.C. Cir. 2016). This “general” 

evidence is a far cry from Defendant’s prior “bad acts” that implicate any risk of prejudice. Even 

if it did, Rule 403 “‘has a highly limited application, if any at all” in a bench trial. See United 

States v. Fitzsimons, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 1658846, at *5 n.6 (D.D.C. May 24, 2022) 

(RC) (quoting Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A., Civ. A. No. 

11-1623 (RC), 2015 WL 13680822, at *1 (D.D.C. June 15, 2022)). As such, Defendant’s 

objection to “general evidence” fails. 

B. Social Media Statements

Relying on Rule 403, Defendant next moves to exclude any social media statements 

made after January 6, 2021. Defendant argues that such statements “should be excluded as their 

only value would be to establish that Ms. MacAndrew was at the Capital [sic] and went inside 

the building.” Mot. at 6. Not so. Of the posts contained in the Stateme[n]t of Facts, these posts 

go to why Defendant entered the building, what she knew when she entered the building, and 

what she saw before, during, and after she entered the building. Again, as this is a bench trial, 

the Court disagrees that reviewing such statements would be cumulative, a waste of time, or 
7

cause undue delay. As such, Defendant’s second evidentiary objection fails as well. 

* * *

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant’s [35] Motion in Limine to Exclude (1) General Evidence of 

the Events of January 6th; (2) Social Media Statements by Defendant After January 6th; and (3) 

Social Media Unrelated to January 6th is DENIED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE IN PART. The Court shall admit general evidence and social media statements 

by Defendant made after January 6, 2021. Because the Government has assured the Court that it 

will not introduce social media statements related to Defendant’s “political opinions, religious 

beliefs, or opinions about COVID-19,” Defendant’s third evidentiary objection is denied without 

prejudice. Should the Government seek to admit such exhibits during trial, Defendant may 

renew this objection at that time. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2022 /s/

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge