Appeals Court Rules Some Jan. 6 Sentences Were Improperly Increased

An appeals court in Washington ruled that some Jan. 6 defendants’ sentences were improperly increased by judges during their sentencing phases.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Jan. 6 defendant Larry Brock improperly had additional charges of “interference with the administration of justice.” The judge who wrote the court’s opinion wrote that the charge doesn’t apply to a sentencing enhancement, however, and struck it down.

“Brock challenges both the district court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s elements and the sufficiency of the evidence to support that conviction,” wrote the judge, Patricia Millet.

The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded that any interference with Congress’ certification of the 2020 electoral votes isn’t tantamount to a sentencing enhancement.

A number of Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted and sentenced for interference in the administration of justice, according to data provided by the Department of Justice. It may mean that their time in prison and other penalties need to be reduced.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, has often asked judges to apply the enhancement charges to the defendants, saying that the Congressional session on Jan. 6, 2021, to count electoral votes and certify the election was the same as a judicial proceeding.

Related Stories

But Mr. Brock’s lawyers successfully argued in an appeal that they shouldn’t apply to his sentence after he was given a two-year prison term in 2023. At the time, the lower court judge involved in his case tacked on additional time for interfering with the administration of justice.

The judges, in siding with Mr. Brock, wrote that Congress’ function on Jan. 6 was not judicial but was only a part of the presidential election process.

“Taken as a whole, the multi-step process of certifying electoral college votes—as important to our democratic system of government as it is—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 panel concluded.

And Judge Millett added law enforcement officials who were there at the Capitol on that were “to protect the lawmakers and their process, not to investigate individuals’ rights or to enforce Congress’s certification decision.”

“After all, she added, ”law enforcement is present for security purposes for a broad variety of governmental proceedings that do not involve the ‘administration of justice’—presidential inaugurations, for example, and the pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkey.”

This is a breaking news story. More developments will follow.