UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 22-096-4 (CKK) PAULA “PAULETTE” HARLOW, Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (November 16, 2023)

A four-day bench trial in this criminal matter concluded on October 26, 2023. Defendant

Paula Harlow (“Defendant”) is charged by indictment with (1) conspiracy against civil rights, in

violation

, and (2) obstructing access to a reproductive health clinic, in violation

of

. In support of its case, the Government introduced testimony from seven

witnesses: (1) Sarah Compton; (2) Sasha Proctor; (3) Caroline Davis; (4) Ashley Jones; (5)

Special Agent Michael Biscardi of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); (6) Officer

Homere Whyte of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”); and (7) Tina Smith. Defendant

presented a case, calling three witnesses: (1) co-Defendant Jean Marshall; (2) co-Defendant Joan

Bell; and (3) herself. Additionally, the Court admitted sixty exhibits into evidence in full.

Lastly, at the close of the Government’s case and her own case, Defendant moved for a judgment

of acquittal as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. That motion

remains pending before the Court.

Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court DENIES

Defendant’s Rule 29 motion by separate order.

The Court finds Defendant Paula “Paulette” Harlow GUILTY on Counts One and Two

of the Superseding Indictment, the Government having carried its burden beyond a reasonable

doubt as to each element of each charge.

1 In reaching a decision on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court

has considered the pleadings, the record, testimony, the parties’ stipulations, the demeanor of the

witnesses while testifying, the reasonableness of or unreasonableness of the testimony, the

probability or improbability of the testimony, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn

therefrom, among all other matters bearing on the credibility of the witnesses and the facts, and

exhibits in evidence. The Court credits the following testimony and evidence as undisputed

and/or unrebutted.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

On October 22, 2020, Defendant invaded a reproductive health clinic in Washington, DC

with her nine coconspirators to halt, for as long as possible, pregnancy-termination procedures

scheduled for that day. To do so, Defendant jostled past three employees attempting to keep the

flood of obstructionists out, later body-slamming the clinic manager into a waiting-room chair.

With a bike lock affixed to her neck, Defendant then chained herself to four of her

coconspirators and blocked the main entrance to the clinic’s medical procedure area. Gov.’s Ex.

1011. When Officer Whyte turned to her and her coconspirators to direct them to exit the clinic,

Defendant responded, “we can’t move; we have the bike locks, so we can’t move.”

In

Defendant’s words, the purpose of the blockade was “to save lives.”

In her view, God

directed her to “rescue those who are being unjustly led to slaughter.” Gov.’s Ex. 1013.

Therefore, she would “not follow an unjust law” that, she understood, mandated she leave the

clinic.

Ultimately, this joint endeavor succeeded in shutting the clinic down for

approximately two-and-a-half hours. Compare Gov.’s Ex. 1001 (entry) with Gov.’s Ex. 1015

(exit).

2 A. Conspiracy

The conspiracy to disrupt the clinic began with the conspiracy’s leaders, Defendants

Lauren Handy and Jonathan Darnel. Handy is a major fixture in the pro-life community in the

District of Columbia, having founded a pro-life organization called “Mercy Missions.” 10/25/23

Trans. at 157:9-14. On September 11, 2020, Handy began discussing an event with Darnel

sponsored by Mercy Missions to discuss forthcoming “nonviolent direct action,” i.e., “civil

disobedience,” also termed a “traditional rescue.”

. A “traditional rescue,” Handy

explained to responding officers on the day of the incursion, entailed “blocking [the entrance to]”

an “abortion facility” to “not allow people to go inside.” Gov.’s Ex. 1009. Handy and Darnel

then began promoting this event in various social-media groups broadly centered in the

Washington, DC area.

. Each reached out directly to individuals from across

the United States, including Joan Bell.

.

On or before October 16, 2020, Bell told Handy that she, co-Defendant Will Goodman,

and “two [other] people” “want[ed] to risk arrest,” i.e., join in a “traditional rescue.” See

; Gov.’s Ex. 5083. Bell testified at trial that two other people drove with her from

Massachusetts and New Jersey to the District of Columbia to participate: Harlow and Marshall.

10/25/23 Trial Trans. at 21:10-12. From this testimony, it is crystal clear that Bell discussed a

forthcoming “traditional rescue” with Marshall and Harlow, and the three of them collectively

decided to join in that upcoming blockade by traveling to the District of Columbia together. As

the Court discusses further below, it is also clear that Bell discussed with Marshall and Harlow

her plan to use locks and chains to block the clinic entrance prior to their departure for the

District of Columbia.

3 Handy informed Bell that the initial rally point was the home of a local pastor. As

Caroline Davis, a cooperating coconspirator, explained, Harlow, Bell, and Marshall arrived early

enough to participate in the discussion setting out the plan for disrupting the clinic the following

day. 1 There, Handy and Darnel explained that there would be two groups: (1) less obstructive

protestors outside to “counsel” women entering the building that housed the clinic, and (2)

activists inside or directly outside the clinic who would disrupt the clinic’s operations. This

latter group would engage in a “traditional rescue,” which Davis understood to mean “block[ing]

the doors for as long as possible” to prevent the termination of a pregnancy. 10/24/23 Trial

Trans. at 15:1. Handy termed this planned rescue in another way: “risking arrest.”

.

Handy and Darnel then asked attendees to raise their hands if they intended to risk arrest

through, at the very least, “blocking the doors of the abortion clinic.”

. Defendant’s

sister and coconspirator, Marshall, further testified that Harlow intended to “risk arrest.”

10/24/23 Trans. at 257:15-18. Davis further testified that a group of older women (clearly

Harlow, Bell, and Marshall) advocated the additional use of locks and chains.

.

Further tactics were discussed, including “going limp” during arrest and Handy’s use of a fake

appointment to gain entry.

. That said, Davis understood that the conspirators

would limit themselves to nonviolent means of obstruction, though there was some concern that

co-Defendant Smith, a recent “convert,” might resort to force.

. After this

discussion, the meeting concluded, and Bell, Marshall, and Harlow left for housing that Handy

had booked on their behalf.

1 Marshall, Bell, and Harlow testified, contrary to Davis’ representations, that they arrived too late at the house to meaningfully participate in the meeting. For the reasons discussed below in subpart I.C, the Court discredits this testimony and credits Davis’ testimony. 4 The following morning, the charged defendants and other uncharged coconspirators met

outside a coffee shop near the clinic to have one last discussion as to the planned blockade.

10/25/23 Trial Trans. at 107:1-5 (suggesting meeting place was outside a “coffee house” or

“restaurant”); Gov.’s Ex. 2017; Gov.’s Ex. 2015. Bell brought to this final meetup a bag

containing the chains, locks, and ropes. See 10/25/23 Trial Trans. at 27:23-24. The bag was

entrusted to Harlow at one point, the bag placed at her feet. Gov.’s Ex. 2017. After additional

discussion, the group departed for the clinic to begin successfully obstructing the clinic’s

operations. See 10/24/23 Trial Trans. at 63:18-21.

B. Obstruction and Violence

Upon arriving at the building housing the clinic, the group split into three. First, Handy

entered the building and went to the clinic’s main entrance in an effort to gain entry using her

fake appointment. Second, Harlow, Bell, Marshall, Idoni, Goodman, and Geraghty hid in an

adjoining stairwell (used as a fire escape) to avoid detection, waiting for the clinic door to open

so that they could rush in. See 10/25/23 Trial Trans. at 122:6-11; Gov.’s Ex. 1079A. Third,

activists who did not intend to actively blockade the clinic and Darnel stood outside the building

housing the clinic, waiting for the blockade to begin. See Gov.’s Ex. 1017.

Shortly before 9:00 AM, the time the clinic was set to open, Handy attempted to enter

using a fake appointment she made under the name “Hazel Jenkins.” 10/23/23 Trial Trans. at

83:6-11. This ruse was less successful than planned, because the clinic manager, Ms. Smith,

recognized Handy from a prior incursion into the clinic a year earlier. See 10/25/23 Trial Trans.

at 116:11-13. Nevertheless, shortly after Handy lied to clinic staff, they opened the clinic door

for patients with appointments. Gov.’s Ex. 1079A.

5 As patients entered, Harlow fastened a bike lock around her neck with Bell’s assistance.

Gov.’s Ex. 1079A. Harlow, wielding the bag of locks and chains, and Bell then followed their

coconspirators in forcing their way into the clinic.

After the first two patients entered at

approximately 9:05 AM, clinic staff attempted to shut the door on Handy and Smith. Gov.’s Ex.

1001. Smith fought against one nurse, shoving the door open and the nurse backwards, causing

the nurse to severely sprain her ankle. See

(scuffle); 10/23/23 Trial. Trans. at 45:23-25

(sprain). A melee ensued, and the clinic manager rushed from the medical procedure area into

the waiting room with a broom to attempt to erect a barrier separating the two patients from

Handy, Smith, and their coconspirators. Gov.’s Ex. 1001. The clinic manager was not

successful.

Bell slipped through an opening, and dragging Harlow with her while Smith

fought with the nurse.

As the clinic manager attempted to stand her ground, a much larger

Harlow purposefully fell on top of the clinic manager, forcefully shoving the clinic manager into

a waiting-room chair.

Harlow then slid to the floor, making room for the remaining

coconspirators to enter.

After Marshall successfully entered the clinic, she, Harlow, and Bell began distributing

the locks and chains together.

After Bell affixed her own bike lock to her neck, Harlow

quickly retrieved chains from the bag and passed it to Marshall.

Marshall, Bell, and Harlow

immediately began to tie the chain to the two respective bike locks while Handy ordered various

coconspirators to block certain doors.

As coconspirators moved waiting-room chairs to

block the main entrance to the medical procedure area, Harlow and Bell passed the chain to

others.

A few minutes later, Harlow and Bell had connected their chains to Smith and co-

Defendant John Hinshaw as well, and the four of them sat in a row of chairs to block the

entrance to the medical procedure area. Id.; Gov.’s Ex. 1004.

6 Police responded quickly, and Officer Whyte entered the clinic approximately fifteen

minutes later. Gov.’s Ex. 1004. When Officer Whyte attempted to remove the chain connecting

Harlow, Bell, Smith, and Hinshaw, Harlow and Marshall insisted that Officer Whyte would

injure them if he tried. Gov.’s Ex. 1011. Harlow then tried a different tack, lecturing Officer

Whyte that he “ha[s] a conscience” that should lead him to “let [the conspirators] stay” in the

clinic to “save lives.” Gov.’s Ex. 1137. At the same time, Ms. Jones, a patient seeking to

terminate her pregnancy, pleaded with Harlow and the coconspirators blocking the medical

procedure area. Gov.’s Ex. 1011. Harlow and her coconspirators would not let Ms. Jones

through, Marshall shouting at Ms. Jones “welcome to the adult world!”

When another group

of coconspirators blocked Ms. Jones from entering through an employee entrance, the blockade

forced Ms. Jones to jump through a small window used to check patients into the clinic. Gov.’s

Ex. 1004. Visibly angered, Marshall then moved from blocking the medical procedure door to

sit directly in front of the small window.

Meanwhile, Darnel narrated the unfolding blockade on a Facebook livestream. He began

by explaining that, in the clinic, his coconspirators were conducting a “block and lock rescue” in

which “ten pro-life people [including Harlow] [were] bonding together physically to prevent the

murder of preborn babies.” Gov.’s Ex. 1017. Darnel explained that Harlow and others were

“intervening with their bodies” to engage in a blockade so disruptive that nothing like it had

occurred “in over twenty-five years.” The purpose of this collective endeavor was “to prevent

women from entering the clinic to murder their children.”

This blockade was, in Marshall’s

words, her and Harlow’s collective effort to “c[o]me to Washington, DC” to “stop the murder”

and “rescue children.” 10/25/23 Trial Trans. at 291:3-8. The plan, however, was to “go down

with the ship” when “police [began] to arrest people.” Gov.’s Ex. 1017.

7 When police began arresting the group, Harlow acted according to the plan discussed at

the evening meeting and refused to cooperate. In order to prolong the disruption, she forced law

enforcement to use a power-saw to cut the bike lock she affixed to her neck. Gov.’s Ex. 1015.

When police attempted to place her in handcuffs and escort her out of the clinic, she went limp

and fell prone.

When law enforcement asked if she would simply sit in a wheelchair to be

wheeled out, she responded that she would “[]not cooperate. I’m sorry.” Gov.’s Ex. 1138. The

last to leave, Harlow caused the clinic to cease operations for approximately two-and-a-half

hours.

C. Defense Testimony

In support of her case, Defendant called herself, Marshall, and Bell as witnesses. Each

provided testimony utterly belied by video evidence. For instance, as to Marshall, video

evidence clearly shows her moving chairs. See, e.g., Gov.’s Ex. 1004. When asked whether she

moved chairs, even after viewing video evidence, she responded that she could not recall moving

chairs. See 10/24/23 Trial Trans. at 253:20-24. Similarly, even after seeing video evidence of

Handy in the clinic, Marshall testified that she did not see Handy in the clinic, despite standing a

few feet away from her. See

. The pattern continued with Bell, who testified,

contrary to video evidence, that Harlow entered the clinic before her, and that she placed a bike

lock around her neck while on “the floor,” despite having never laid on the floor (like Harlow

did). See

. Similarly, Harlow insisted that she did not enter the clinic with a bike

lock around her neck, even after watching video evidence that Harlow did, in fact, enter the

clinic with a bike lock around her neck. See

. Because all three witnesses

lied on the stand, the Court cannot find any of their self-serving testimony credible, and instead

credits only their inculpatory testimony or testimony supported by other documentary evidence.

8 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Count One

To find a defendant guilty of conspiring against rights, in violation of

,

the Government must show that the defendant: (1) joined a conspiracy (2) to “injure, oppress,

threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment” of a right or privilege

guaranteed by “the laws of the United States.” See

; United States v. Price,

(1966). As the Court has already held, the FACE Act provides a right to

provide or receive reproductive health services, including abortions, without obstruction by a

private person. United States v. Handy, Crim. A. No. 22-096 (CKK),

, at *3

(D.D.C. July 25, 2023). Additionally, as the Court explained in a prior opinion, the clause

“injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” encompasses any conduct that is “intended to harm,

frighten, punish, prevent, or obstruct a person’s exercise or enjoyment” of a right guaranteed by

federal law. See United States v. Handy, Crim A. No. 22-096,

, at *2 (D.D.C.

Sept. 22, 2023).

First, it is clear that Harlow conspired with others to obstruct access to reproductive

health services at the clinic on October 22, 2020. That conspiracy began when Bell recruited

Harlow to join in the upcoming blockade and, in Handy’s words, “risk arrest.” Video evidence

demonstrates that Harlow planned with Bell to use locks and chains in advance of the event.

Contrary to Bell’s testimony, there is no indication on surveillance footage that Harlow was at all

surprised to have a bike lock affixed around her neck outside the clinic. In fact, Harlow very

clearly worked with Bell and Marshall to distribute locks and chains from a bag for which she

had joint responsibility. Both video and photographic evidence establishes Harlow as co-owner

of the bag. Harlow further joined the broader conspiracy when, consistent with Davis’

9 testimony, she joined the group effort to mount a “lock and block” rescue as agreed the evening

before and morning of the blockade, a rescue in which, Handy explained the evening prior,

Harlow would have to “risk arrest” to participate.

Second, video evidence clearly demonstrates that Harlow agreed with others to prevent

and obstruct Ms. Jones from terminating her pregnancy that day. Darnel explained at the

beginning of the blockade that a group of activists together intended to prevent patients from

accessing pregnancy-termination services in the clinic. Harlow herself described on Officer

Whyte’s body-worn camera her purpose for chaining herself to three other activists directly in

front of the main entrance to the area in which terminations are performed: to “rescue those who

are being unjustly led to slaughter” by preventing the termination of a pregnancy in the clinic

that day. If that were not enough to demonstrate the purpose of the conspiracy, Davis’ testimony

further explicates it.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Government has carried its burden beyond a

reasonable doubt as to this charge and finds Defendant GUILTY on Count One.

B. Count Two

To find a defendant guilty of obstructing access to a reproductive health clinic, the

Government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant used force or physical

obstruction; (2) the defendant intentionally injured, intimidated, or interfered with a patient or

employees of the reproductive health clinic in their receipt or provision of reproductive health

services; and (3) the defendant did so because a patient was receiving or an employee was

providing such services.

(a)(1); Terry v. Reno,

(D.C. Cir.

10 1996). 2 As to the first element, it is clear that Defendant used both force and physical

obstruction.

First, the record demonstrates that Defendant used both force and physical obstruction.

The term “force” means “violent force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another

person.” United States v. Handy, No. 23-3143,

, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 3,

2023) (unpublished). “Physical obstruction” means “rendering impassable [or] unreasonably

difficult or hazardous” “ingress to or egress from a facility that provides” among other things,

abortion services.

(e)(4). Security camera footage shows Defendant, seeing that

the clinic manager is attempting to prevent Defendant from further entering the clinic, Defendant

purposefully fell on top of her, forcing the clinic manager downwards into a chair. This video

evidence is consistent with the clinic manager’s testimony that Defendant “pushed [the clinic

manager] back towards [a] chair” by “coming on top of [her]” with her “weight[.]” 10/24/23

Trial Trans. at 146:1-2, 204:3020. It is inconsistent with Defendant’s testimony that Defendant

merely inadvertently fell. See 10/25/23 Trial Trans. at 122:5-7. As for physical obstruction,

blocking the entry to the medical procedure area with a line of activists chained together clearly

“renders impassable [or] unreasonably difficult or hazardous” that entryway. As to the

remaining elements, Defendant herself explained that she intentionally interfered with patients

and employees of the clinic because they were seeking and providing, respectively, abortion

services. The Court therefore finds Defendant GUILTY on Count Two.

2 The operative indictment also charges aiding and abetting, and the Government asks the Court to find Defendant guilty on a theory of Pinkerton liability in the alternative. Because the Court finds Defendant guilty as a principal, the Court need not reach these alternative theories of liability. 11 III. CONCLUSION

This is not a close case. Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Defendant conspired

to obstruct access to abortion services at the clinic on October 22, 2020 and ultimately did so

successfully. Accordingly, the Court finds Paula “Paulette” Harlow GUILTY on Counts One

and Two.

Dated: November 16, 2023 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

12