Oral arguments before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have been scheduled for December 12, centering on a controversial case involving alleged firearm silencers tied to the events of January 6. With Dan Wilson receiving a second pardon from former President Trump, attention turns to Hatchet Speed, another individual facing similar challenges in the legal system.
Hatchet Speed’s predicament is hardly unique among those associated with the January 6 investigation. Like Wilson, Speed is entangled in a convoluted legal fight involving unregistered firearm possession—a scenario muddied by the government’s interpretation of “firearm silencers.” According to reports, Speed was prosecuted for possessing three items authorities have identified as silencers, despite their actual purpose as fluid drip containers. These containers, widely available for sale, are marketed as gun-cleaning tools rather than firearm accessories, raising questions about their classification.
The case against Speed began with what can only be described as an overreaching geofence warrant, a directive that demanded cell phone data from anyone near the Capitol on January 6, 2021. This sweeping request runs counter to the Fourth Amendment, which stipulates that search warrants should be rooted in probable cause for specific individuals. The broad strokes of this warrant led the FBI to identify Speed’s cell number and deploy an undercover agent into his circle. This agent assumed the guise of a fellow patriot, befriending Speed over several months while secretly recording their conversations. Some of these discussions included personal beliefs and reflections on various subjects, including the concept of end times—a line of conversation that would later become critical to the prosecution’s case.
When the dust settled, Speed was indicted in two federal courts on multiple charges, including possession of alleged silencers and obstruction of an official proceeding. His trial revealed the absurdity of the situation. Speed’s first trial ended in a hung jury, indicative of the conflicting sentiments regarding the evidence presented. Following this, the Department of Justice imposed obstruction charges despite a Supreme Court ruling that undermined the validity of such charges in similar protest contexts. Ultimately, Speed’s convictions led to a sentence of seven years in prison—a harsh outcome given the original nature of the claims against him.
A striking element of the prosecution’s approach was using Speed’s comments to the undercover agent to establish a supposed motive linked to extremist views. Yet, crucial evidence demonstrating his actual intent—to comply with regulations—was excluded from the trial. This exclusion of pertinent facts, alongside the reliance on irrelevant recordings, raises significant concerns about judicial fairness and impartiality in Speed’s case.
In navigating the murky waters of this legal battle, Speed appears to have been mostly overlooked by the Trump administration’s efforts to retroactively extend clemency to those caught in the January 6 fallout. While others in similar situations have been granted pardons or relief, Speed’s case languishes in what some might call a bureaucratic abyss.
With the Fourth Circuit set to hear arguments soon, Speed’s lawyer is rallying to gather financial resources necessary for their continued fight, highlighting the struggle faced by those who, despite being pardoned, remain ensnared in the legal web. The urgency of Speed’s situation underscores a broader concern: the impacts of relentless government prosecutions that few anticipated in the wake of the January 6 events.
As a nation grapples with the implications of such legal precedents, the unfolding of this case may serve as an alarming example of how the judiciary can sometimes skew the definitions of justice and fairness. The outcome of Speed’s appeal will not only affect his life but may also reflect on America’s commitment to upholding the foundational principles of due process.
"*" indicates required fields
