How have courts and investigations treated statements about hanging Mike Pence during Jan. 6 prosecutions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Courts and investigators have treated the chants of “Hang Mike Pence” and the visible gallows at the January 6 attack as central evidence of a violent threat that shaped both investigatory narratives and prosecutorial filings, while legal teams and some political allies have disputed aspects of the record and questioned investigative choices [1] [2] [3]. Prosecutors incorporated the threats into indictments and public filings as context for alleged criminal schemes, but at least one prosecution team signaled restraint in using certain Trump-era statements at trial because of a Supreme Court immunity ruling and related litigation decisions [4] [5].
1. Investigators treated the chants and gallows as proof of a real, imminent threat
House investigators and the Justice Department repeatedly documented rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and the construction of a makeshift gallows on the Mall as objective facts that demonstrated the immediate danger to the vice president and the violent intent of parts of the mob [1] [2]. The January 6 select committee aired video and witness testimony tying those chants to the moment Pence refused to abandon certification, and prosecutors cited the chants and the gallows as part of the evidentiary backdrop in charging papers and public exhibits [2] [1] [4].
2. Prosecutors used the threat-language to contextualize alleged conspiracies and threats
Federal prosecutors, including the special counsel leading the Jan. 6 probe, incorporated references to the mob’s calls to “hang Mike Pence” and reporting about a gallows into indictments and unsealed filings to show the stakes and foreseeable risks posed by the events of the day, and to buttress claims about pressure campaigns and criminal schemes surrounding certification [4] [6]. News accounts of unsealed filings also report prosecutors describing contemporaneous conduct — for example, Trump’s reported response when told Pence was in danger — as part of their evidentiary portrait, though they flagged decisions about what would be introduced at trial [5].
3. Courts have been a venue for dispute over what statements can be used at trial
While investigative records and indictments reference the chants and related statements, at least one prosecutorial filing acknowledged a strategic decision not to prominently rely on a specific interaction concerning Trump’s reaction to Pence — citing the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling as a reason for restraint — signaling that courts’ rulings on immunity and related legal doctrines have constrained how some statements are deployed in prosecution [5]. The public record from the special counsel indicates prosecutors weigh appellate and constitutional limits when deciding what to present to juries [5] [4].
4. Defense and some political allies have challenged aspects of the investigative narrative
Members of Congress and allied officials have pushed back on how the gallows and chants were investigated and presented, with at least one House Republican releasing a report questioning whether Capitol CCTV was sufficiently examined to identify who built the gallows and why it remained in place early on Jan. 6 [3]. That critique reflects an implicit agenda to undermine elements of the select committee’s narrative and to shift scrutiny onto Capitol security lapses rather than on the rhetoric of rioters or statements by Trump aides [3].
5. Courts have not treated chants as isolated legal smoking guns — context matters and limits exist in the public record
The courts and prosecutors have largely treated the chants, the gallows, and reported remarks about “hang Mike Pence” as contextual facts that support broader charges (assaults, obstruction, conspiracy) rather than as standalone counts about the chant itself, and public filings show selective use of specific quoted interactions depending on legal risk and strategic calculation [1] [4] [5]. Available reporting does not show a definitive court ruling that any specific Jan. 6 defendant was convicted solely for chanting about Pence; instead, the evidence has functioned as circumstantial and corroborative material in multiple prosecutions [1] [6].
6. Limitations in reporting — what cannot be asserted from the provided sources
The assembled sources document investigators’ accounts, committee hearings, press releases, and prosecutorial filings, but they do not provide a comprehensive catalog of every court ruling on the admissibility of specific “hang Mike Pence” statements across the many Jan. 6 prosecutions, nor do they include trial transcripts showing how all trial judges ultimately ruled in every case; therefore definitive claims about every court’s evidentiary decisions cannot be made from these sources alone [7] [5] [3].