The former leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, is expected to testify as a defense witness for Lt. Shane Lamond, a former Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department officer. Lamond, a 22-year veteran of MPD’s Intelligence Branch, is facing trial on federal charges of obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents. Central to the trial is Lamond’s relationship with Tarrio, who is serving a 22-year sentence after he was convicted of seditious conspiracy related to the events of January 6, 2021.
Advertisement
RELATED:
Over the course of several years, Lamond and Tarrio maintained regular communication, with Tarrio often sharing details of his group’s plans and movements in Washington, D.C., including the number of Proud Boys attending rallies and their planned routes. Lamond’s role as an intelligence officer involved keeping law enforcement informed about protest activities, but his close ties with Tarrio are now the focus of legal scrutiny, as prosecutors allege that his interactions with the Proud Boys leader went beyond standard law enforcement duties.
The government argues that Lt. Lamond overstepped his role by not only gathering information from Tarrio but also providing him with tips about law enforcement activities. Specifically, prosecutors claim Lamond shared details of a police investigation into the Proud Boys’ involvement in burning a BLM banner lifted from Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in December 2020 and later warned Tarrio of an impending arrest related to the incident. Tarrio pled guilty and served just over 4 months in jail for that incident.
The nature of Lamond’s relationship with Tarrio and the exchange of hundreds of text messages will be the focus of Lamond’s trial. His defense team argues that these interactions were part of standard police work, particularly in the context of keeping law enforcement informed about potential threats.
In response to claims of bias, Lamond’s attorney, Ana Jara, firmly rejected the suggestion that Lamond sympathized with the Proud Boys, calling it :
Advertisement
Simply not true.
Lamond was expected to testify in defense of Tarrio in his trial, which concluded last year, but he was placed on leave and threatened with obstruction charges. Tarrio’s lawyers argued that Lamond’s testimony would be exculpatory, showing that the Proud Boys had openly communicated with law enforcement about their plans, undermining the conspiracy charges. Ultimately, Lamond did not testify, and he has since been charged by the DOJ, as had been previously threatened.
As I previously reported:
It’s important to note that a potential witness for the defense in Tarrio and his co-defendant’s high-profile case was Lt. Shane Lamond, who was a 22-year intelligence department veteran with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Weeks before jury selection, it became clear that Lt. Lamond would plead the Fifth Amendment if called to the stand, as he was put on leave pending investigations into his conduct and relationship with Tarrio.
Lamond’s job was to gather intelligence on protests in the interest of keeping opposing groups separated, and Tarrio often reported to Lamond the details of his group’s plans and locations while in the DC area. (As someone who has organized protests, I can assure you that notifying law enforcement is a common practice.)
In a pre-trial hearing, Tarrio’s lawyers, Sabino Jauregui and Nayib Hassan, claimed that federal prosecutors threatened to charge the D.C. police lieutenant with obstruction of justice to deter him from testifying. They asserted that testimony Lamond could provide would be both important and exculpatory. According to Jauregui, if Tarrio and his associates were openly communicating their intentions with the police, as Lamond’s testimony could attest, there would be no grounds for the alleged conspiracy to overthrow the government, as outlined in the charges against them.
Defense counsel Jauregui spoke of the email received from Lamond’s attorney, stating he wouldn’t be available to testify, saying:
We are hearing at the very last minute, all of a sudden, the government is telling defense counsel for Mr. Lamond that they are looking into him for obstructing the investigation for Mr. Tarrio. They have known this for six months. This is a tactical decision. They are pressuring [Lamond] because they cannot prove at trial there was a conspiracy … How can there be sedition if the Proud Boys are informing law enforcement of their plans on Jan. 6?
The jury in Tarrio’s and his co-defendant’s case never heard Lamond’s testimony, while it may have been exculpatory. Lamond has since been charged by the DOJ, as previously threatened.
Advertisement
In fact, during his closing arguments, Tarrio’s defense attorney Nayib Hassan defended Lamond, calling the government’s characterization of him “shameful“:
Hassan called the government’s attempt to discredit Lamond “shameful,” highlighting a timeline of communications from Lamond giving other members of law enforcement and his superiors information regarding Tarrio’s plans, from November to January 4th. For clarity, in closing arguments, the defense for the former Proud Boys leader Tarrio took up arguments in defense of a police lieutenant who gave information leading to Tarrio’s January 4 arrest.
(DISCLOSURE: The author of this article is acquainted with Enrique Tarrio.)