The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Climate Activist Found Guilty in Defacing Degas Exhibit at National Gallery of Art"
From Tuesday's Justice Department press release:
Timothy Martin, 55, of Raleigh, North Carolina, was found guilty by a federal jury for his role in the April 27, 2023, defacement of an art exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.
The verdict was announced by U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., and Special Agent in Charge Sean Ryan of the FBI Washington Field Office Criminal and Cyber Division.
President Trump directed federal authorities in a March 2025 Executive Order to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful by launching a multi-faceted initiative to address both crime and beautification. This includes the creation of the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force to coordinate law enforcement efforts, and a program to restore and enhance the city's public spaces.
"This verdict sends a strong message to the thousands of people who come to D.C. each year to demonstrate and be heard," said U.S Attorney Martin. "Free speech is a constitutional right. But when you take illegal action, such as causing damage to an art exhibit at the National Gallery, you are crossing a line. We want to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Again, and we will not tolerate anyone defacing our city to get attention for their cause."
After a four-day trial, the jury, yesterday, found Martin guilty of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and injury to a National Gallery of Art exhibit. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson scheduled sentencing for August 22, 2025.
According to evidence introduced in court, Martin and co-defendant Johanna Smith, 54, of Brooklyn, NY, smeared paint on the case and base of Edgar Degas' Little Dancer, Age Fourteen, a sculpture which has drawn visitors for years to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. Following the attack, a group called Declare Emergency claimed credit.
Martin and Smith agreed, along with other co-conspirators, to enter the National Gallery of Art for the purpose of injuring the exhibit and entered the museum armed with water bottles filled with paint. Martin and Smith handed their phones to other co-conspirators and waited until patrons cleared the area in front of the Little Dancer. The pair proceeded to smear paint on the case and base of the exhibit, at times smacking the case with force. Prior to the attack, members of the conspiracy had alerted the Washington Post, and two reporters from the Post recorded and photographed the offense. Additionally, other members of the conspiracy filmed and photographed the offense.
Smith and Martin caused over $4,000 in damage, including material and labor costs, and the exhibit was removed from public display for 10 days so that it could be repaired.
Smith pleaded guilty December 15, 2023, to one count of causing injury to a National Gallery of Art exhibit. She was sentenced to 60 days in prison, followed by 24 months of supervised release and ordered to pay a $3,000 fine and $4,062 in restitution.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Truly one of the dumbest activist strategies of our times.
They're aware that the public is never going to agree with their cause, so instead the resort to a form of extortion. A lot of modern 'protest' is actually extortion, a threat to just be an incredible pain in the ass if you don't get what you want.
Was there a threat or extortion request made before they did this?
From the OP and everything I've read, that's not how it went down.
You're trying to turn stupid into evil. Because you want to live in a political thriller with heroes and villains.
So many villains.
Playing dumb only makes you look dumb.
Perhaps you could suggest a different word instead of just playing dumb. I don't know many people who would argue that "extortion" is inapt.
Paid DNC trolls arent what they used to be
Word for what?
Brett thinks extortion happened. But 'give me X or I'll deface this art' is not what happened.
With activism, just like with many other goals where the object isn't to advance your own interests, it doesn't matter if you help or hurt your cause, it matters whether you can convince yourself you helped your cause.
President Trump directed federal authorities in a March 2025 Executive Order to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful
So does this mean that Maxine Waters will be prohibited from entering DC? Win win!
Civil disobedience is often by design not protected speech, and by it's definition sanctionable.
That's not always the right answer since that kind of attention is often playing into their hands.
Not seeing that in this case though - anyone who thinks this is gonna create political change has too much zealotry and no sense.
Huh.
I was really starting to come around to their way of thinking.
Just a few more vandalized art works and they would have had me.
A dark day for free speech.
The docket is on CourtListener - 23-CR-182. Only a proposed jury instruction related to mental state and property value is available.
IANAL and wonder why the trial took four days, but not curious enough to find a transcript. And sentencing delayed four months. It will be interesting to compare the two sentences.
Sentencing in federal felony cases is almost always very slow. Damage over $100 to art in the D.C. national museums is a felony. 40 USC Chapter 63.
I wonder about the witnessing reporters. I understand charging them with a crime would have been bad optics and could have turned a simple trial into appeals up and down the system. But suppose they hadn't been either reporters or supporters. Suppose the extortionists had called up someone at random and said, "Be at the museum in half an hour, we're going to deface some art to freak out the public over climate change."
My first reaction on receiving such a call would be to hang up and forget it. My second reaction might be to call the museum and warn them, and to show up only if the museum wanted me there. But supposing I instead showed up with a camera man to record for the news. Wouldn't that make me an accomplice or something? Are there general laws that if you think a crime is going to happen and don't alert anyone, you can get in trouble?
(I don't know the details of this one, like how much warning they were given, what they were told to expect, etc. But if they had time to get to the museum, they had time to alert the museum.)
I wondered the same thing. If you called reporters about a bank robbery or an assassination, and they believed the threat (as evidenced by showing up) but failed to do anything, would the case turn out the same way? At what point does a knowing failure to act turn into complicity?
That "as evidenced by showing up" is one problem. I can easily imagine the reporter's defense saying he didn't know what was going to happen, he thought it would be some harmless speechifying (who throws paint on statues to protest oil???), if anything was going to happen, or if it was just a prank.
Maybe that makes prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt so hard that no one would prosecute unless they could show the reporter had discussed details before hand and it was so well documented that there was no room for doubt.
1985 in Florida a boat had capsized and a man was struggling in the water. A news helicopter was filming him in the water. A Coast Guard helicopter showed up, but, couldn't aid the man because the news helicopter wouldn't get out of the way. The man drown. It was attempted to press charges against the people in the news helicopter, but it was discovered that they had broken no law and it was an election year for local officials. Because of this a law was passed that required non interference with rescue personnel and equipment and the FAA passed a regulation basically requiring the same.
Those reporters knew that they were on safe ground, especially in DC.
Not unless one has a duty to act. There was a common law offense called "misprision of felony" that made it a crime to fail to report one's knowledge of a felony, but (a) it now only covers someone who took active steps to conceal the crime, and (b) even at its broadest AFAIK only applied after-the-fact, not in advance.
So even if someone credibly threatens to assassinate the President (or your other favorite politician/movie star/etc), there's no duty to act. I suppose that must be true since even the police have no duty to protect citizens.
While legally sound, this doesn't sound like a symptom of a healthy society. Seems like a topic we should re-address at some point.
You conflate moral duty with legal duty.
It is a sign of a healthy society that we do NOT do that.
No he did not. He clearly recognized the difference.
Clearly!
this doesn't sound like a symptom of a healthy society. Seems like a topic we should re-address at some point.
This is the same side that required low flow shower heads and low flow toilets.
"same side"
There are only 2 sides: ME and anti-ME.