随着当局继续追查参与1月6日事件的个人起义在美国国会大厦，越来越多的被指控者采用了新的辩护方式:指责警察让他们进来。

根据美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)审查的宣誓书和法庭文件，至少有29名因在1月6日事件中扮演角色而被捕的人声称，他们认为自己可以自由进入国会大厦，因为执法当局要么没有阻止他们进入，要么从未告诉他们不允许他们进入。

克里斯托弗·格里德(Christopher Grider)的律师托马斯·迈尔(Thomas Mayr)告诉美国广播公司新闻，“他不在前线，他没有看到路障被推倒，他没有看到警察遭到袭击，他没有看到除了国会大厦的人群之外的任何东西。”克里斯托弗·格里德是被指控参与暴乱的人之一。"他穿过一扇敞开的门。"

德克萨斯州的格里德是几十名疑似暴徒之一，他们声称不知道自己不被允许进入——其中一些人辩称，他们实际上是被官员带进来的。他现在面临多项指控，包括暴力进入国会大厦和行为不检。

加州的雅各布·刘易斯告诉调查人员，他从未被告知不能进入国会大厦，他被警察“护送”进了大楼。当美国广播公司新闻采访刘易斯时，他说他将发布视频片段来“支持他的故事”。他拒绝与美国广播公司分享这段视频。刘易斯被指控犯有四项轻罪，包括在受限建筑中的扰乱秩序和破坏行为。

尽管对国会警察的审查仍在继续，但专家表示，这种辩护在大多数情况下不太可能奏效。

布伦南司法中心司法项目高级顾问、纽约东区前联邦检察官塔林·默克尔(Taryn Merkl)表示:“总的来说，对法律的无知不是犯罪行为的借口。”

许多被指控的暴徒还面临多重指控，罪名是他们据称在大楼内犯下的罪行，专家表示，这将使他们合法进入的说法变得毫无意义。

“不管人们是否知道像他们那样进入场地是不合法的，许多人都被指控游行、示威或纠察队——这是被禁止的，也不需要任何意图，”梅尔克尔说。

例如，布兰登·费罗斯(Brandon Fellows)告诉调查人员，他认为自己不会惹上麻烦，因为警察似乎“站在我们这边”，但后来有人看到他把脚放在D-Ore参议员杰夫·默克莱(Jeff Merkley)的桌子上。

“即使官员允许他在圆形大厅或其他可能是公共空间的地方，任何人都知道闯入私人参议院办公室是错误的，并将阻碍政府的管理，”梅尔克尔说。

加州大学伯克利分校的法律教授查尔斯·魏斯伯格(Charles Weisselberg)曾是一名公设辩护律师，他说，这种辩护可能有助于那些被指控犯有故意犯罪行为的人。

“如果有人认为他们被允许做某事，这可能会否定否则需要定罪的意图，”魏斯伯格告诉美国广播公司新闻。“它是否成功取决于事实，取决于他们所听到的、看到的和相信的，但我能看到这一点。”

然而，梅尔克尔指出，大多数暴徒是根据适用于保护国会大厦的具体法规被起诉的，检察官不必证明被告的意图。

约翰·杰伊刑事司法学院的刑事辩护律师兼助理教授迪米特里·沙克涅维奇也说辩护是行不通的。

沙克涅维奇说:“如果我让我家的门开着，即使我让门开着，你也不能破门而入。”。“这还是非法侵入...并且说我开门就暗示同意进入是愚蠢的。”

然而，那些表示不知道自己在实施非法行为的人的说法，可能会加剧特朗普支持者和强硬的极端分子之间的区别，特朗普支持者可能会一时糊涂，而强硬的极端分子则前往国会大厦计划实施暴力。美国广播公司新闻部对法庭记录、军事记录、采访和现有新闻报道的分析发现，至少有19名被捕者与以下人员有关联或可能有联系极端组织，包括《骄傲的男孩》、《誓言守卫者》和《百分之三》。此后，许多与这些团体有关联的个人被指控犯有阴谋罪。

尽管一些被指控的暴徒表示，他们认为执法部门允许他们进入，但其他人表示，他们认为他们是在时任总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的直接命令下行动的。特朗普在袭击前的集会上告诉他的支持者，他们应该“拼命战斗”，他将加入他们向国会大厦的游行。

不定冠词美国广播公司新闻分析发现至少有12名暴徒进行了这样的辩护，民主党人上周试图以特朗普直接煽动暴徒的指控为特朗普定罪时多次提出了这一点。

维斯伯格说，起诉被指控暴徒的当局可能会直接指出暴徒到达国会大厦时观察到的情况，从而对这种说法提出质疑。

“你在看他们进入的位置，你在看他们进入的时间，你在看他们是否进入了一个受限空间，”魏斯伯格说。“检方可能会用其他事实来反驳，辩称对于一个在这个特定位置来到大楼的人来说，他们实际上不可能相信他们有权进入，因为他们看到了碎玻璃、损坏和其他在那个特定时间点进入的人应该看到的东西。”

这些指控，无论成功与否，都让人们重新关注警察那天的行为。袭击发生后，官员们开始质疑为什么执法部门没有做好更好的准备，此后几周内展开了大量调查。

本周早些时候，众议院议长南希·佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)宣布，国会将成立一个外部委员会来调查这场骚乱，包括“美国国会大厦警察(U . S . Capital Police)和其他联邦、州和地方执法机构在国家国会大厦地区的准备和反应”。

参议院计划举行其第一次听证会下周1月6日之前的安全准备工作，并呼吁负责保护美国国会大厦的现任和前任官员作证。

其中一名被指控暴徒的律师布莱斯·洛瑞·考德威尔(Bryce Lowry Caldwell)告诉美国广播公司新闻，他们正在“调查”国会警察的行动，作为可能的辩护。

他告诉美国广播公司新闻，“许多人因在不该在的地方而被起诉”。“如果有人让他们上...这是一个问题。”

根据联邦调查局的证词，考德威尔的客户乔丹·雷诺在Snapchat上发布了“一名国会警察从里面开门让我们进去”。Revlett还告诉调查人员，他“没有看到任何限制他进入的迹象”，并且“一名警察站在他进入的门后，没有试图阻止他进入”。

“还有其他几名被告也这么说，”考德威尔告诉美国广播公司新闻。“我可以肯定地说，这是司法部将会调查的一个问题。”

当被问及对此有何评论时，一名DOJ官员提到了美国广播公司新闻部之前的声明，即“任何在那天故意犯罪的人都将被起诉。”

俄亥俄州众议员蒂姆·瑞恩说，一名国会官员告诉美国广播公司新闻，此后对35名国会警察的行动进行了调查，至少两名警察被停职。

其他官员因在袭击中保护国会大厦的英雄行为而受到表彰，袭击造成包括一名国会警察在内的五人死亡，数十名官员受伤。

国会警察没有回应美国广播公司新闻的置评请求。

“我当然认为国会警察在这方面的作用应该得到充分调查，无论是由检察官还是由众议院监督委员会进行调查，”前联邦检察官梅尔克尔说。“需要对国会警察在促成此事或协助和教唆此事方面的作用(如果有的话)进行审查。”

然而，梅尔克尔说，“政府的行为不是在刑事案件中受审。受审的是被告的行为。”

In new defense, dozens of Capitol rioters say law enforcement 'let us in' to building

As authorities continue to pursue individuals who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol, a growing number of those charged are employing a new defense: blaming the police for letting them in.

At least 29 people arrested for their role in the Jan. 6 events have claimed they thought they were free to enter the Capitol because law enforcement authorities either didn't stop them from coming in or never told them they were not allowed to be there, according to affidavits and court filings reviewed by ABC News.

"He was not at the front of the lines, he didn't see barricades being knocked down, he didn't see officers getting assaulted, he didn't see anything other than large crowds at the Capitol," Thomas Mayr, the lawyer for Christopher Grider, one of the people accused of participating in the riot, told ABC News. "He went through an open door."

Grider, of Texas, is one of dozens of suspected rioters who claimed to be unaware they were not allowed inside -- some of whom argued that they were actually ushered in by officers. He now faces multiple charges including violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

Jacob Lewis of California told investigators he was never told that he could not enter the Capitol, and that he was "escorted" by police into the building. When reached by ABC News, Lewis said he would be releasing video footage to "back up his story." He declined to share the video with ABC News. Lewis was indicted on four misdemeanor charges, including disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building.

Even as scrutiny of Capitol police continues to build, experts say it is unlikely such a defense will work in most situations.

"In general, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for criminal behavior," said Taryn Merkl, senior counsel in the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and a former federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York.

Many accused rioters also face multiple charges for crimes they allegedly committed once inside the building, which experts say would render their claims of legal entry meaningless.

"Whether or not people knew that it was not lawful to enter the grounds as they did, many are charged with parading, demonstrating, or picketing -- and that is prohibited, and no intent is required," Merkl said.

Brandon Fellows, for example, told investigators he did not think he was going to get in trouble because the police officers seemed to be "on our side," but he was later seen with his feet up on the desk of Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

"Even if the officer had permitted him in the rotunda area or somewhere that might conceivably be a public space, anybody knows that breaking into a private senatorial office is wrongful, and would obstruct the administration of government," Merkl said.

U.C. Berkeley law professor Charles Weisselberg, a former public defender, said the defense might help those charged with crimes where intent is required.

"If someone believes that they are allowed to do something, it might negate the intent that's otherwise required to convict," Weisselberg told ABC News. "Whether it is successful or not depends on the facts, what they heard, saw, and believed, but I could see that being presented."

Merkl, however, noted that the majority of the rioters are charged under specific statutes that apply to the protection of the Capitol, for which prosecutors don't have to prove intent on the part of the accused.

Dimitry Shakhnevich, a criminal defense attorney and adjunct assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, also said that defense wouldn't work.

"If I leave my door open to my house, you can't bolt in, even though I left the door open," Shakhnevich said. "It's still trespassing ... and making the argument that I impliedly consented to access by leaving my door open is silly."

Still, claims by those who say they were unaware they were committing illegal acts could sharpen the distinction between Trump supporters who may have gotten swept up in the moment and hardened extremists who went to the Capitol with plans to commit violence. An ABC News analysis of court records, military records, interviews, and available news reports found that at least nineteen of those arrested have associations or possible ties to extremist groups, including the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters. Numerous individuals associated with those groups have since been charged with conspiracy.

And while some accused rioters say they believed law enforcement allowed them to enter, others are saying they believed they were acting under direct orders from then-President Donald Trump, who told his supporters at the rally before the attack that they should "fight like hell" and that he would be joining them on their march to the Capitol.

An ABC News analysis found at least a dozen rioters have mounted such a defense, a point that was raised multiple times by Democrats as they sought last week to convict Trump on charges that he directly incited the mob.

Weisselberg said that authorities prosecuting accused rioters will likely dispute such claims by pointing directly to what the rioters observed upon arriving at the Capitol.

"You're looking at the location where they entered, you're looking at the time that they entered, you're looking to see whether it would have appeared that that they were entering a restricted space," Weisselberg said. "The prosecution might counter with other facts, arguing that for a person who came up to the building at this particular location, they actually couldn't have believed that they were entitled to enter because they saw broken glass, damage, and other things that should have been apparent to this person entering at that particular point in time."

The claims, whether successful or not, bring a renewed focus on the conduct of police that day. In the aftermath of the attack, officials began questioning why law enforcement was not better prepared, and numerous investigations have been opened in the weeks since.

Earlier this week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that Congress would create an outside commission to investigate the riot, including "the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the National Capitol Region."

The Senate is scheduled to hold its first hearing into the security preparations leading up to Jan. 6 next week, and has called current and former officials responsible for securing the U.S. Capitol building to testify.

Bryce Lowry Caldwell, an attorney for one of the alleged rioters, told ABC News they were "looking into" the actions of the Capitol Police as a possible defense.

"Numerous individuals have been charged for being on a piece of property when they shouldn't be," he told ABC News. "If someone let them on ... that's an issue."

Caldwell's client, Jordan Revlett, had posted on Snapchat that "a capitol police officer opened the door from inside to let us in," according to the FBI affidavit. Revlett also told investigators he "did not see any signs that would have restricted his entry" and that "a police officer was standing behind the door he entered, who did not try to stop his entry."

"There's several other defendants who said the same," Caldwell told ABC News. "I would feel safe to say that's an issue the Department of Justice would be looking into."

When asked for comment, a DOJ official referred ABC News to its previous statements that "any individuals who intentionally committed a crime that day will be charged."

Investigations have since been opened into the actions of 35 Capitol Police officers, a congressional official told ABC News, and at least two officers have been suspended, according to Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.

Other officers have been honored for their heroism in protecting the Capitol during the attack, which left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer, and injured dozens of officers.

Capitol police did not respond to ABC News' request for comment.

"I certainly believe that the Capitol Police role in this should be fully investigated, whether it's by prosecutors or by the House Oversight Committee," said Merkl, the former federal prosecutor. "There needs to be a review of what the Capitol Police role, if any, was in facilitating this or aiding and abetting it."

Nevertheless, Merkl said, "the actions of the government aren't on trial in a criminal case. What's on trial is the action of the defendant."

​