Washington, D.C., November 2024 – With former President Donald Trump now declared the winner of the recent presidential election, lawyers for defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol riot are urging judges to halt their cases, arguing that Trump’s public pledge to pardon them should factor into ongoing judicial proceedings.
Only hours after news outlets reported Trump’s win, attorneys for several January 6 defendants filed motions in federal court, requesting delays in their clients’ legal proceedings.
The motions cited statements Trump made throughout his campaign, in which he repeatedly promised clemency to nonviolent Capitol riot participants if he regained office.
These defendants, now expecting clemency, argue that pressing forward with sentencing would be “fundamentally unfair.”
On Wednesday morning, Christopher Carnell, who was convicted on charges including obstruction related to his participation in the riot, had his attorney file a motion to postpone a scheduled status hearing.
Carnell’s legal team contended in the filing that he is now “awaiting further information from the Office of the President-elect regarding the timing and expected scope of clemency actions relevant to his case.”
The motion suggested that, based on Trump’s statements, Carnell believes he will soon receive a pardon, relieving him of the need for further criminal prosecution.
Despite these arguments, the presiding judge swiftly denied Carnell’s request, according to court documents.
Carnell’s attorney was not immediately available for comment on the matter.
A similar motion was filed on behalf of Jaimee Avery, another January 6 defendant, whose attorney sought to delay her sentencing hearing, also scheduled for Friday.
Avery’s lawyer argued that waiting until after Trump’s January inauguration would allow time for potential policy changes by the incoming administration, particularly from Trump’s anticipated Attorney General.
The motion claimed that the “real possibility” of clemency or leniency by the new Justice Department would be critical for Avery’s defense.
Furthermore, the filing underscored the perceived “gross disparity” that Avery would face by serving a sentence while Trump, “who played a pivotal role in organizing and instigating the events of January 6,” remains free of criminal consequences.
Like Carnell’s attorney, Avery’s legal counsel did not respond to a request for further comments on the filing.
Over the past three years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has actively prosecuted individuals involved in the January 6 riot, where crowds stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
According to DOJ statistics, more than 1,532 people have been charged with crimes related to the event as of November 2024, including 571 individuals facing felony charges for assaulting or impeding law enforcement.
Trump’s recent promises to pardon certain January 6 defendants have drawn mixed responses from political figures.
During his campaign, Trump referred to these individuals as “political prisoners” who were supposedly “ushered in” by Capitol Police officers.
This characterization has been contested by several prominent Republicans, including Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence, who was himself targeted during the riot.
Pence and other Republicans have argued that the actions taken on January 6 warranted legal consequences for those involved.
Trump, however, has insisted that his pardons would primarily benefit nonviolent individuals, as opposed to those who he has described as “evil and bad.”
In an interview in April, Trump said he “absolutely” would pardon innocent rioters if re-elected, asserting that many were convicted under “a very tough system.”
At a National Association of Black Journalists event in July, Trump reiterated his support for clemency for certain individuals, pledging to investigate wrongful convictions among the January 6 defendants.
Legal experts suggest that while clemency may ultimately be a reality for some, it is unlikely that judges would grant case delays based on promises of potential future pardons.
Nadia Shihata, a former assistant U.S. Attorney recognized for her work in the high-profile sex trafficking case against R. Kelly, as reported by Business Insider, explaining that judges typically do not allow external political factors to influence scheduling decisions.
“Generally, in judicial proceedings, you’re not focused on what political decisions may or may not happen in the future,” Shihata explained.
“And so I don’t know that a judge would necessarily be convinced to change their schedule based on that.”
David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and the current director of inspection and oversight at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, echoed these sentiments.
Shapiro noted that while Trump’s campaign statements could impact the actions of defense attorneys, any real shift in case outcomes will likely hinge on whether Trump takes concrete action after taking office.
“In the beginning, if he does something like that to a couple of defendants, yeah, you’ll see a trend,” Shapiro remarked, suggesting that initial clemency acts could encourage more defendants to seek similar relief.
As the Department of Justice continues its wide-ranging investigations and legal efforts surrounding January 6, the potential role of presidential clemency looms large.
While many defendants hope for leniency, the legal community remains divided on how soon any changes will take effect and how substantial they will be.
For now, many January 6 defendants must continue to await the final outcomes of their cases, as judges are reluctant to suspend legal proceedings based on uncertain future political promises.
The status of the Department’s cases and the potential for clemency remain fluid, especially with Trump’s inauguration scheduled in January.
