What evidence did the DOJ cite specifically when concluding there was insufficient evidence to charge the officer in Ashli Babbitt's shooting?
Executive summary
The Department of Justice said its decision not to charge the U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt rested on a body of physical and testimonial evidence — principally video and radio recordings, witness interviews, autopsy findings and the contextual determination that Babbitt was part of a violent mob trying to breach the Speaker’s Lobby — and concluded that investigators found “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.” [1] The DOJ framed its legal conclusion around the absence of proof that the officer “did not reasonably believe” deadly force was necessary to protect members of Congress and others evacuating the House chamber. [2]
1. The evidentiary core DOJ says it examined: video, witnesses, radio and autopsy
The DOJ’s public statement and subsequent reporting emphasize that the investigation reviewed video footage from multiple sources, radio communications from officers, and interviews with witnesses and the officer who fired the shot, and that investigators also considered the autopsy report in reaching their determination. [3] [4] [5] Those materials formed the factual record the U.S. Attorney’s Office said supported the finding that there was insufficient evidence for criminal charges. [1]
2. Context matters: investigators placed Babbitt inside a violent attempt to breach the House
Officials explicitly described Babbitt as part of a group that had gained access to the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby and was attempting to force entry into the secured lobby leading to the House chamber; members of the crowd had been striking and breaking the glass door with hands, flagpoles and helmets and pounding on the doors while officers evacuated members of Congress. [1] [4] That context was central to DOJ’s legal view because the officer’s use of force was evaluated against whether he reasonably believed it was necessary to defend the chamber and evacuating lawmakers. [2]
3. The legal hinge: no evidence the officer lacked a reasonable belief he needed to shoot
The DOJ repeatedly framed its conclusion in negative terms: investigators said they found “no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot,” the officer “did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.” [1] [2] In other words, prosecutors concluded the available evidence did not disprove the officer’s claim that deadly force was reasonably necessary under the chaotic circumstances; that absence of disprovative evidence is what the DOJ described as insufficient for criminal prosecution. [6]
4. Corroboration and internal reviews: USCP’s own inquiry and investigative overlap
Parallel to the DOJ review, the U.S. Capitol Police completed an internal investigation that likewise examined video and radio calls and interviewed multiple witnesses before concluding the shooting was lawful and within department policy — a finding the DOJ’s investigative teams considered in their review. [3] [7] The overlap of federal and departmental reviews strengthened prosecutors’ access to the same evidentiary sources cited in the public statement. [1]
5. Counterarguments from the family and independent commentators
Babbitt’s family and their lawyers disputed the government’s conclusion, arguing the visual record shows an unarmed woman who posed no immediate threat and that officers had options other than shooting — contentions reflected in media reporting and the family’s civil filings seeking records and later settlement talks. [6] [4] Independent legal analysts, including some at Lawfare, have also flagged unresolved questions about whether the officer’s perception of an imminent threat was reasonable given the available public footage, underscoring that legitimate legal debate about proportionality and immediacy remains. [7]
6. What DOJ did not publicly establish and reporting limitations
The DOJ press release and follow-up reporting specify the categories of evidence reviewed but do not publicly lay out a line-by-line evidentiary narrative demonstrating precisely how each piece disproved criminal culpability; instead officials announced the ultimate factual determinations (insufficient evidence, no proof officer lacked reasonable belief) without releasing a full prosecutorial memorandum or complete investigative file to the public. [1] [4] Where reporting or later litigation fills gaps, that material is separate from the DOJ’s summary conclusion and may be contested in civil proceedings. [8]