Judges may have improperly applied federal sentencing guidelines to more than 100 people convicted of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, a federal court ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s argument that convicted rioters merited lengthier prison sentences for interfering in the “administration of justice” when they stormed the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
“[T]he phrase ‘administration of justice’ does not encompass Congress’s role in the electoral certification process,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling.
“[T]ext, context, and commentary show that ‘administration of justice’ refers to judicial, quasi-judicial, and adjunct investigative proceedings, but does not extend to the unique congressional function of certifying electoral college votes,” she added.
“Administration of justice” enhancements are typically reserved for defendants who disrupt judicial proceedings, such as a courtroom trial or grand jury investigation.
However, prosecutors routinely asked DC judges to apply the enhancement to individuals convicted of participating in the riot at the Capitol.
More than 100 rioters have had “administration of justice” enhancements applied to their sentences, Patricia Hartman, a spokesperson for the DC US Attorney’s Office, told the Associated Press.
The imprisoned rioters who had their sentences enhanced may push for new, lighter sentences if the appeals court ruling stands.
The case before the appeals court was specifically related to the enhancement of convicted rioter Larry Brock.
Brock, a retired Air Force officer who stormed the Capitol while wearing a military combat helmet and tactical vest, was convicted of a felony charge of obstruction of an official proceeding and misdemeanor offenses for his role in the riot.
He was sentenced last year to two years in prison.
“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,’” the appeals court ruled.
Brock’s attorney argued that the misapplied enhancement likely increased his client’s sentence by about nine months.
The Justice Department is considering whether to appeal the ruling, according to Hartman.