Court overturns sentencing enhancement used in Jan. 6 rioter cases
A federal appeals court panel on Friday ordered the sentencing of a January 6 rioter after overturning a judge’s decision to impose a longer sentence on the grounds that the rioter had interfered with the administration of justice, potentially opening the door for dozens of other convicted rioters to be reintroduced on the same basis would be convicted.
In its decision, the three-judge panel found that the man’s storming of the U.S. Capitol did not amount to a “substantial interference with the administration of justice.” The panel ruled that the process of urging the judge to add time to his sentence on that basis – a step known as an enhancement – had been improperly applied.
At the same time, the court upheld his felony conviction for obstructing Congress’ certification of the electoral count. That reaffirmed the legal feasibility of a central indictment in the cases against hundreds of rioters, as well as the federal indictment against former President Donald J. Trump.
Friday’s decision preceded a Supreme Court case in which the justices will consider the scope of that same charge – corruptly obstructing an official proceeding – and whether it can be used against Mr Trump in two of the four charges facing he faces in election interference. case brought by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith.
Friday’s appeals court ruling may not result in any immediate benefit or sentence reduction for other Jan. 6 defendants, although many may be sentenced similarly.
But depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the broader decision on the obstruction charge could effectively invalidate convictions and end pending cases against hundreds of rioters charged with felony obstruction.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came in an appeal filed by Larry R. Brock Jr., a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from Texas. Mr Brock was sentenced to two years in prison for his role in the riot, during which he was videotaped in the Senate gallery wearing a helmet and tactical vest and holding a set of plastic flexible cuffs.
In the lead-up to the riot, Mr. Brock made a series of Facebook posts denouncing the election results as fraudulent and predicting a “civil war” and “revolution” if the Supreme Court or Congress did not overturn President Biden’s victory.
In private messages, Mr. Brock also contacted another Army Special Forces veteran, discussing plans that included arresting political leaders and “key personnel” and implementing “measures we used against Al Qaeda to obtain evidence about the coup’.
Although the court found that the improvement of “justice” did not amount to “interference with the legislative process for certifying electoral votes,” it left little doubt that Mr. Brock had acted deliberately and traveled to Washington, well aware of the potential for violence. .
“When a defendant announces his intention to use force to obstruct a proceeding in Congress, becomes equipped for force, and then actually obstructs those proceedings, the evidence supports a finding that he acted with an impermissible purpose or with knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions.” court wrote.
It is unclear how the decision could affect the punishment of Mr. Brock or other rioters. Improvements in sentencing only affect the guidelines that judges must take into account when imposing a sentence, taking them to the next level. But many January 6 defendants have already received relatively lenient sentences below this guideline. And in many Jan. 6 cases, Washington district court judges have said the enhancements were not relevant to the final sentence.
But the decision to uphold Mr Brock’s own conviction could be tested when the Supreme Court rules.
In April, a federal appeals court upheld the feasibility of using the charge against the Jan. 6 rioters, who were accused by the Justice Department of disrupting the Electoral College vote certification. Defense attorneys and some federal judges disagree, however, based on a key provision of the law: that the disruption of official proceedings was done “corruptly.”
Mr. Brock was one of several rioters who insisted they sincerely believed the claims that the election had been stolen and only realized in retrospect that their actions had strayed into illegal territory.
Mr Trump has also insisted that his calls for his supporters to demonstrate in Washington on January 6 were based on legitimate concerns about the integrity of the election.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the use of the federal obstruction law in connection with the Capitol riot is expected in June.