HUGE decision out of DC Circuit this morning saying the proceedings before Congress on Jan. 6 did not involve the "administration of justice" as that phrase is used in the Sentencing Guidelines.
This will be moot if the SCOTUS throws out the 1512 count altogether in the Fischer.
But this has been a MASSIVE point of conflict between defense counsel and the DOJ/Judges in sentencing J6 defendants on 1512 counts.
That was the "go to" felony for DOJ early on, and the reason for that is the Govt was asking for -- and getting "11" levels of enhancements.
This is real "inside baseball" stuff, but here is how it worked.
The "Base Offense" level for 1512 is "14".
The higher that number, the longer the recommended sentence.
The Govt was asking for, and the Judges -- except one -- were giving two different enhancements to that "14".
Both enhancements involved interfering with the "due administration of justice".
An "8" level enhancement for violence.
Another "3" level enhancement if proceedings were actually interfered with.
The application of these two enhancements increased the offense level to 25.
For someone with no criminal history, the recommended sentencing range for a Level 14 is 15-21 months.
For someone with no criminal history, the recommended sentencing range for a Level 25 is 57-71 months.
Difference is 1.5 years and over 5 years in prison.
By pleading guilty, the range was lowered to 41-51 months for "acceptance of responsibility."
The Govt plea offers REQUIRED that defendants agree that the two sentencing enhancements apply.
If a defendant refused he/she could go to trial where the convictions are nearly 100%.
If the 1512 counts are throw out by SCOTUS, this will not matter because most of those defendants will be entitled to resentencing based on a calculation that doesn't involve the two enhancements.
But even if SCOTUS upholds the 1512 convictions, this ruling could require a huge number of cases to come back to District Court for resentencing -- with the new sentences being much shorter than the sentences that were imposed.
By my recollection, only one Judge ruled that these two enhancements did not apply because congressional proceedings did not involve the "Administration of Justice." Every other judge engaged in various forms of linguistic gymnastics to twist the words to fit the facts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The question as posed by the Supreme Court allows them to answer it as a general proposition, and not specifically as to Trump and the DC case.
It can say the lower courts were wrong that rule categorically there is never immunity -- which is what they did.
They can say that as a matter of separation of powers and serious public policy considerations -- same as Nixon -- a POTUS enjoys immunity for "official acts", and on that basis the lower court decisions are wrong.
But without taking any position on the allegations of the indictment made against Trump, it can send the case back to the trial court to address the issue of whether immunity applies to some/all of the actions alleged in the indictment which will require evidentiary findings.
A short thread on what it sometimes means to "win" a J6 case given the realities faced by defendants.
In the summer of 2022 I agreed to handle an all-misdemeanor case. At the time I was only doing felony cases.
But this one particular client asked specifically to have me handle his case and I agreed. He was a commercial airline pilot who had his license revoked by the FAA merely by virtue of his arrest -- he hadn't even been charged yet. TSA labeled him a "domestic terrorist."
That meant he lost is AOA badge, which was his ability to go into secure areas of airports not open to the public. So he lost his career with a commercial airline -- which he had gone to college for and was the only thing he had ever done after graduation.
Not committing to follow the results -- I can't weed out the bots and folks answering in bad faith -- but if you were to subscribe here, would you pay $9.99 a month knowing funds went to J6 defense costs?
The January 6 Legal Defense Fund was created for Jan 6 defendants who could not hire an attorney the option to pick an attorney to represent them rather than accept the attorney appointed for them by the Court.
If you are a regular reader of my timeline here you know that the work I do representing Jan 6 defendants is almost entirely supported by online contributions towards the costs of defending the cases. Some do make small contributions towards the costs of their cases.
But others cannot even do that. One defendant had an asset to sell and he did that, but his case turned out to be one of the most expensive in terms of time and costs so even for him the Jan 6 Legal Fund was necessary to account for the excess costs in his case.
Something for the two of you - @kyledcheney @julie_kelly2
Does SCO Smith believe a different set for rules apply to him?
Let's examine the following from SDFL Garcia Hearing filing:
Now let's look at the Docket of that case as of about 30 minutes ago:
What I see is that SCO Smith has cited to ECF's No. 45 and 46 -- his notices of the potential conflict for Attorney Woodward. He then goes on to cite and quote from a document he only identifies as "Response" with the accompanying citation to "In re Grand Jury," 23-GJ-46.