Actually the first person who resisted the plea agreements and testified at a trial was acquitted with the argument that it was reasonable to believe that the officers allowed them into the building:
you almost got that right, kinda.
he wasn't the first to "resist" a plea agreement, he was simply the first one to testify in his own defense. the same defense was used in two prior bench trials overseen by mcfadden, and he rejected it. those defendants were convicted. in martin's case, his acquittal is based on the fact that martin just sort of wandered around a bit and then left.
jan 6 defendants were overwhelmingly convicted by judges and juries alike. outside of like two edge cases like martin's, no one gave two shits about the "but the cops said i could totally do a sedition!!!!!!!" arguments. for what should be pretty obvious reasons.