A federal appeals court on Friday overturned a sentencing enhancement used against Jan. 6 defendants charged with felony obstruction, a decision that means over 100 convicted rioters may have to be
The decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday when it declined to overturn the felony conviction of a Jan. 6 defendant who stormed the U.S. Capitol, reaffirming a charge also lodged against former president Donald Trump that will soon be debated by the Supreme Court.
The same appellate court had already ruled that “obstructing an official proceeding” does not apply only to destroying evidence, as many Jan. 6 defendants have claimed. Even though the crime was created in response to attempts to cover up a financial scandal, the court said, stopping Congress from certifying a presidential election also qualities. That ruling will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16. But judges have disagreed on one element of the crime — what it means to act “corruptly.” Previous panels of judges concluded that acting violently, or committing another felony in the process of obstructing Congress. This panel found that even if a defendant’s only felony conviction was for obstruction, he could still be acting “corruptly” because he knew what he was doing was wrong and could lead to violence.
Like Trump, retired Air Force lieutenant colonel Larry R. Brock Jr. did not commit any violence on Jan. 6. And like Trump, he argued that he earnestly believed that the election was stolen. Brock — who gained notoriety after he was photographed in the Senate Chamber in an army green helmet and vest — was convicted of obstructing Congress, one of the four felony charges Trump faces in D.C. federal court.
“Mr. Brock thought he was acting righteously, patriotically and with a eminently proper purpose,” attorney Charles Burnham said at oral argument in September.
The judges, all Democratic appointees, said Brock did not have to act violently or know Trump lost to understand that what he was doing was wrong; it was enough to know what he was doing was illegal and could involve violence.
“Brock participated in a riot that sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election by force, and that he was himself prepared to take violent action to achieve that goal,” the judges wrote. Relying on his pre-riot social media posts, they said, “Where a defendant announces his intent to use violence to obstruct a congressional proceeding, comes equipped for violence, and then actually obstructs that proceeding, the evidence supports a finding that he acted with an impermissible purpose or knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions.”
However, they agreed with Brock that he should not have been penalized for “substantial interference with the administration of justice,” saying that sentencing enhancement is about thwarting the legal process in some way, not the crimes committed at the Capitol. Brock will now be resentenced, although that does not mean he will receive any reduction in punishment. After being found guilty last year in a bench trial, he was sentenced to two years in prison, far less than prosecutors sought.
In its ruling, the D.C. Circuit panel said that even if the Supreme Court rules that the law requires destruction of evidence, it could still apply to rioters because “participation in the January 6th riot caused Congress to adjourn [an] evidentiary process” — the confirmation of votes from the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the obstruction charge could not only impact hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, but also one of four criminal trials Trump faces as he is also the GOP front-runner for president. Trump is accused of obstructing the congressional proceeding on Jan. 6 by directing the mob to the Capitol, along with his efforts to have “fake electors” counted, and pressing Vice President Mike Pence to recognize them as legitimate. Trump’s attorneys have argued that, like Brock, the former president thought the 2020 election was stolen and so had no criminal intent.
Prosecutors with the office of special counsel Jack Smith have highlighted multiple instances in which Trump was told he lost and appeared to acknowledge that fact. At oral argument in one of the earlier obstruction challenges at the circuit, a defense attorney suggested that while his client was honest in his beliefs, Trump probably wasn’t.
But at oral argument in Brock’s case, multiple judges emphasized that a defendant can believe they are morally right and still know their actions are illegal.
“Let’s say that someone has been in an election for a state judge. And the candidate thinks that she won, but she’s not being recognized as the winner,” Judge Cornelia Pillard said. “Does that privilege her to rally a mob, to go and interfere with an investiture of the court, to break into the courthouse, because she has a sincere belief that she’s been wronged?”
When Burnham noted that the same could be true of civil rights protesters, Pillard said that “the power of civil disobedience” was the willingness to be punished.
The decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday when it declined to overturn the felony conviction of a Jan. 6 defendant who stormed the U.S. Capitol, reaffirming a charge also lodged against former president Donald Trump that will soon be debated by the Supreme Court.
The same appellate court had already ruled that “obstructing an official proceeding” does not apply only to destroying evidence, as many Jan. 6 defendants have claimed. Even though the crime was created in response to attempts to cover up a financial scandal, the court said, stopping Congress from certifying a presidential election also qualities. That ruling will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16. But judges have disagreed on one element of the crime — what it means to act “corruptly.” Previous panels of judges concluded that acting violently, or committing another felony in the process of obstructing Congress. This panel found that even if a defendant’s only felony conviction was for obstruction, he could still be acting “corruptly” because he knew what he was doing was wrong and could lead to violence.
Like Trump, retired Air Force lieutenant colonel Larry R. Brock Jr. did not commit any violence on Jan. 6. And like Trump, he argued that he earnestly believed that the election was stolen. Brock — who gained notoriety after he was photographed in the Senate Chamber in an army green helmet and vest — was convicted of obstructing Congress, one of the four felony charges Trump faces in D.C. federal court.
“Mr. Brock thought he was acting righteously, patriotically and with a eminently proper purpose,” attorney Charles Burnham said at oral argument in September.
The judges, all Democratic appointees, said Brock did not have to act violently or know Trump lost to understand that what he was doing was wrong; it was enough to know what he was doing was illegal and could involve violence.
“Brock participated in a riot that sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election by force, and that he was himself prepared to take violent action to achieve that goal,” the judges wrote. Relying on his pre-riot social media posts, they said, “Where a defendant announces his intent to use violence to obstruct a congressional proceeding, comes equipped for violence, and then actually obstructs that proceeding, the evidence supports a finding that he acted with an impermissible purpose or knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions.”
However, they agreed with Brock that he should not have been penalized for “substantial interference with the administration of justice,” saying that sentencing enhancement is about thwarting the legal process in some way, not the crimes committed at the Capitol. Brock will now be resentenced, although that does not mean he will receive any reduction in punishment. After being found guilty last year in a bench trial, he was sentenced to two years in prison, far less than prosecutors sought.
In its ruling, the D.C. Circuit panel said that even if the Supreme Court rules that the law requires destruction of evidence, it could still apply to rioters because “participation in the January 6th riot caused Congress to adjourn [an] evidentiary process” — the confirmation of votes from the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the obstruction charge could not only impact hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, but also one of four criminal trials Trump faces as he is also the GOP front-runner for president. Trump is accused of obstructing the congressional proceeding on Jan. 6 by directing the mob to the Capitol, along with his efforts to have “fake electors” counted, and pressing Vice President Mike Pence to recognize them as legitimate. Trump’s attorneys have argued that, like Brock, the former president thought the 2020 election was stolen and so had no criminal intent.
Prosecutors with the office of special counsel Jack Smith have highlighted multiple instances in which Trump was told he lost and appeared to acknowledge that fact. At oral argument in one of the earlier obstruction challenges at the circuit, a defense attorney suggested that while his client was honest in his beliefs, Trump probably wasn’t.
But at oral argument in Brock’s case, multiple judges emphasized that a defendant can believe they are morally right and still know their actions are illegal.
“Let’s say that someone has been in an election for a state judge. And the candidate thinks that she won, but she’s not being recognized as the winner,” Judge Cornelia Pillard said. “Does that privilege her to rally a mob, to go and interfere with an investiture of the court, to break into the courthouse, because she has a sincere belief that she’s been wronged?”
When Burnham noted that the same could be true of civil rights protesters, Pillard said that “the power of civil disobedience” was the willingness to be punished.
