Violent scuffle at courthouse in Topeka led to officer's injuries and 2 years in prison

DENVER — A violent scuffle at the federal courthouse in Topeka in which a security officer sustained serious injuries in 2021 led to the perpetrator being sent to prison.

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was right to have sentenced the offender, James Harold Young, to two years behind bars.

Young became angry at security officers when he arrived at the courthouse to see his probation officer, appeals court judges stated in the ruling. Young was on a form of probation, known in the federal court system as supervised release, from a previous sentence for a prior crime.

During the ensuing scuffle with the officers, equipment in the lobby was knocked over, officers and Young fell to the floor and an officer sustained serious head trauma and a broken finger, according to Tuesday's 10-page decision.

Officers took Young into custody and new court proceedings against him began for forcibly resisting, opposing or interfering with a federal officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties.

U.S. District Judge Holly L. Teter in Topeka last year imposed the 24-month sentence on Young. In a written ruling, she stated he "intended to inflict injury when he resisted and opposed and interfered with both officers and did not comply” at the courthouse entrance. She said he entered the building and "charged towards the entry point at the metal detector. Both court security officers were there, they engaged in a struggle at that point in time.”

Teter concluded that the struggle violated the conditions of his release while he was under court supervision for his previous conviction, not registering as a sex offender.

Young challenged her decision and took the issue to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver.

He contended there was insufficient evidence to show he intended to injure the security officers. Their names weren't disclosed.

The appellate judges rejected his argument.

"We have carefully reviewed the (lower court's) record, including the video surveillance, and conclude it supports the district court’s finding." the appellate judges wrote.