Thread by @ZoeTillman

Hello from Chief Judge Beryl Howell's courtroom (I'm listening remotely) where Jan. 6 defendant Brian Stenz (in the hat) is appearing for sentencing after pleading to the parading misdemeanor. Govt wants 14 days incarceration + 3 years probation, Stenz wants 2 years probation

Dial-in info to listen to the hearing before Howell, plus court rules:
dcd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-emerg…
Toll Free Number: 888-557-8511
Access Code: 3318202

AUSA starts to explain case for incarceration for a misdemeanor by describing general severity of Jan. 6 (how prosecutors generally have started sentencing presentations), Howell cuts her off, noting the govt isn't seeking jail for everyone, wants her to speak to this defendant

Howell says her understanding is the difference for Stenz, from the govt's perspective, is that he has five prior convictions. AUSA says that's right, that he'd been sentenced to probation before so they don't think it's proven to be enough of a deterrent. From memo:

Another element that the govt is highlighting for Stenz is that he made it into Sen. Merkley's office, took a photo that he texted to an acquaintance

Howell says it "bears repeating" that Jan. 6 was not "legitimate political discourse," alluding to GOP use of those words. She asks: Does the govt "accept some responsibility" for "helping to foster some confusion" by allowing people to plead guilty to the parading charge?

Howell: "I wanted to give the govt an opportunity to explain that choice. If you want to take the opportunity to explain it."

AUSA: "I think that that question is, um, sort of gets to the policy decisions of management, who are clearly not myself. So I understand your frustration and I understand your argument and your point, but I don’t feel like I am the person to address it."

Howell doesn't push the AUSA, turns to DOJ appellate lawyer James Pearce, who has been serving as DOJ's defender of split sentences for petty offenses (jail + probation), and asks if he can address her question

Pearce says this is a "policy level decision" and that it's not the govt's role "to be engaged in political discussion" about the "political significance" of Jan. 6, they are "ensuring criminal responsibility" for what happened

Pearce: The way that the govt has proceeded with Jan. 6 is "really not different from how we have proceeded with criminal investigations and proseuctions generally." He says they "charge what we believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt"

Howell responds that in the past, parading charges were what the govt would pursue for a case like a person who stood up and disrupted a hearing.

"I was surprised to see them brought in the Jan. 6 cases"

Howell: "I take it from what you’re saying is that the govt does not acknowledge any responsibility in the confusion in some parts of the public about whether it was just protest on Jan. 6" by allowing plea deals for parading?

Pearce: "That was certainly not our intention." He continues, saying it's "possible" charging/plea decisions have led to the confusion that Howell is talking about, or it's possible not. He stresses the govt does not believe it was a protest or "legitimate political discourse"

Pearce: It was a criminal event, it was in many respects an act of domestic terorrism.

Howell: No question there were people in the Capitol who were terorrized.

The judge ends this exchange and shifts back to talking about Stenz and has Pearce address the split sentence issue

Stenz's lawyer Joseph Marrone stresses the minimal time he spent in the Capitol, his decision to contact the FBI and answer questions. Howell notes Stez talked about following Trump and believing the 2020 election was stolen - she asks if he still believes that

Marrone says the judge would need to ask Stenz that question. She says that what he believes re: whether the election was stolen is relevant in assessing his risk of engaging in future political violence. Marrone says he's "detached" from politics since Jan. 6

Marrone has gotten into a little trouble with Howell a few times. At one point, she stopped to direct him to keep his mask on and over his nose while he speaks (they're in the courtroom). Later, she admonished him not to interrupt her

Stenz addresses the court: "Just like to say I'm sorry to the court, DC. ... I'm kind of embarrassed to be here today, wasting everybody's time"

Howell asks about photos he sent to friends after, asks if he did that because he was proud. Stenz says he was "wound up" immediately after, felt like he was part of something, but then by a week later he felt "ashamed"

Howell is gearing up to announce the sentence. She reiterates that although Stenz pleaded guilty to an offense for "parading, demonstrating, or picketing" in the Capitol, what happened on Jan. 6 was not "protected 1st Amendment speech"

Howell agrees with the govt that the fact that Stenz went into Sen. Merkley's office, although only for a few minutes, sets his case apart from other defendants accused of being in public hallways only

Stenz insisted that he didn't know the last name of the person he traveled to DC with, said it was a young guy from the neighborhood who had Trump stuff on his lawn. Howell says she finds it hard to believe Stenz didn't know the full name (AUSA said they found it on their own)

Howell is discussing how Stenz's past criminal convictions also set his case apart, that he was given probationary sentences in the past that didn't give him "pause" when he decided to join in on Jan. 6

Howell says that something to Stenz's credit is that he didn't post on social media or make comments to the media afterwards boasting about his participation in Jan. 6

Howell says it's important to send message that "lack of forethought, getting caught up in a crowd does not create absolution for criminal activity, especially when this kind of participation in a mob facilitates and amplifies the blatant and egregious criminal conduct of others"

Howell indicates she plans to sentence Stenz to a short period of incarceration as a condition of probation, making it unnecessary for her to rule on whether split sentence of incarceration + probation is allowed (an important legal distinction even if result is similar)

Now: Chief Judge Howell sentences Brian Stenz to 3 years probation, with conditions of 14 days incarceration + 2 mos home detention. She says a lengthy period of probation is important to cover the next two election cycles and ensure he doesn't engage in more political violence

Howell is also ordering Stenz to pay a $2,500 fine, in addition to the $500 in restitution that he agreed to as part of his plea deal (what all Jan. 6 misdemeanor plea deals include)

And that's a wrap on that. Howell has another Jan. 6 sentencing set for 11am, she's going to take a 10-minute break

I'm not live-tweeting this one, @rachelweinerwp has a good thread going on the 2nd sentencing before Howell today -->

https://twitter.com/rachelweinerwp/status/1494346259276210179

New: A judge questioned if DOJ was partly responsible for Republicans describing Jan. 6 and the events around it as "legitimate political discourse," given the decision to offer low-level misdemeanor plea deals in hundreds of cases buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…

It was the latest instance of Chief Judge Beryl Howel criticizing DOJ's handling of the Jan. 6 prosecution effort, and putting government lawyers on the spot to explain why they're offering plea deals for petty offenses buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…