D.C. Appeals Court Decision May Reduce Jan. 6 Sentences

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling Friday that a Jan. 6, 2021, defendant's sentence must be recalculated because of the improper use of a federal statute allowing more time to be added to the penalty.

The decision could force district court judges to recalculate or even reduce punishments of more than 100 defendants convicted of felony obstruction.

The Justice Department has been asking judges to add an "administration of justice" enhancement in the Jan. 6 cases, in connection with federal sentencing guidelines that encourage the designation to be added in disruption cases involved in judicial proceedings, allowing sentences to be increased by more than a year, reports Politico.

But while the DOJ has argued that the Jan. 6 session of Congress, held to certify the results of the 2020 election should be considered as the equivalent of a judicial proceeding, the appeals court Friday rejected that argument.

The appeal was brought before the three-judge panel by Jan. 6 defendant Larry Brock, who was sentenced to two years in prison for obstructing the congressional proceedings.

U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, included the federal enhancement to Brock's sentence.

The appeals court affirmed Brock's felony conviction but ordered that Bates resentence him without adding the enhancement.

Brock was one of the earliest protesters breaching the Capitol, and Judge Patricia Millett, in the unanimous ruling agreed upon by Judges Cornelia Pillard and Judith Rogers, wrote that there was "no doubt" that his actions interfered with the congressional proceedings.

"Brock's interference with one stage of the electoral college vote-counting process — while no doubt endangering our democratic processes and temporarily derailing Congress's constitutional work — did not interfere with the 'administration of justice,' " she wrote.

All three of the appellate judges were appointed by Democrats, with Millett and Pillard named by former President Barack Obama and Rogers serving as an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

The panel further concluded that the congressional count of electoral votes is important to the United States' democratic system of government but "bears little resemblance to the traditional understanding of the administration of justice as the judicial or quasi-judicial investigation or determination of individual rights."

The prosecution had argued that the session constituted the administration of justice, considering the presence of security officials and Capitol Police but the judges did not agree.

Millett wrote that the law enforcement agencies were at the Capitol to protect lawmakers and the process, but not to "investigate individuals' rights or to enforce Congress's certification decision."

She also noted that law enforcement is present at many government proceedings that don't involve the administration of justice, including inaugurations "and the pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkey."

Friday's ruling comes as the Supreme Court prepares to determine if obstruction charges can be applied more broadly to the Jan. 6 defendants, some of whom are argued that the prosecutors have relied on a statute that criminalizes efforts to impair evidence or shred documents used in government proceedings.

The outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling could also affect the case of former President Donald Trump, who is facing obstruction charges in Washington, D.C.

Trump has been accused of obstructing the congressional proceedings by directing the protesters to the Capitol and pressing Vice President Mike Pence to recognize a slate of electors as legitimate.

The former president's attorneys, like Brock's, are arguing that he thought the 2020 election was stolen, so he had no criminal intent by pushing back on it.