Shipwreckedcrew Profile picture
Mar 1 9 tweets 2 min read Read on X
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
 

Keep Current with Shipwreckedcrew

Shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

Feb 29
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.
Read 6 tweets
Dec 7, 2023
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.
Read 14 tweets
Dec 3, 2023
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?
Would you pay $4.99?
Would you pay $2.99?
Read 4 tweets
Nov 28, 2023
Today is the "National Day of Giving."

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.

givesendgo.com/j6ldff?gclid=C…
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.
Read 24 tweets
Sep 13, 2023
Susana Gibson should inquire about the availability of the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House.

Think about the PPV potential.

Maybe even get a special guest appearance from Hunter.
This one needs a solicitation attached to it. It might rocket around X.

givesendgo.com/j6ldff?gclid=C…
I've got another BRILLIANT idea for J6 fundraising!!!
Read 4 tweets
Aug 23, 2023
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: Image
Now let's look at the Docket of that case as of about 30 minutes ago: Image
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.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(