Washington, D.C. – A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. made a significant decision regarding the sentencing of a defendant related to the 2021 attack on the Capitol. The court overturned a portion of the defendant’s sentence, which has implications for over a hundred other cases linked to the January 6th insurrection.
The ruling by a three-judge panel focused on the lower court’s sentencing of the defendant for interfering with the administration of justice during the certification of Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump. The appeals court clarified that the term “administration of justice” does not cover Congress’s role in the electoral certification process.
This ruling could lead to the resentencing of other January 6 defendants who received similar sentences to Larry Brock, the defendant who appealed his case to the court. Despite overturning part of Brock’s sentence, the panel affirmed his overall conviction.
Judge Patricia A. Millett emphasized the importance of applying sentencing guidelines as written, highlighting that while Brock’s actions disrupted democratic processes and Congress’s work, they did not constitute interference with the administration of justice.
Larry Brock faced six charges, including corruptly obstructing Congress’s certification of the electoral count. Similarly, former President Donald Trump is facing a charge of obstructing an official proceeding in relation to the January 6 attack. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
According to Patricia Hartman, a spokesperson for the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office, more than 100 defendants in January 6 cases have had enhancements applied to their sentences. Over 1,300 individuals have been charged in connection to the riot, with around 750 pleading guilty to federal charges and approximately 785 already sentenced.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on another January 6 defendant’s appeal regarding obstruction charges, a decision that will have implications for other defendants facing similar charges. This ruling adds another layer of complexity to the legal proceedings stemming from the events of January 6.