A Washington Post analysis suggested that the sentences of Jan. 6 Capitol Riot defendants may reflect political bias on the part of the judges handling these cases.
Roger Parloff is a journalist based in Washington, D.C. In recent years, he has regularly contributed to Yahoo Finance and Air Mail News, and has also been published in The New York Times, ProPublica, New York, and NewYorker.com. For 12 years, he was the main legal correspondent at Fortune Magazine. He is an attorney who no longer practices. He is a senior editor at Lawfare.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Two groups appear to have played an outsized role in the events of that day, and their cases should hold particular interest for those trying to understand the causes of the insurrection.
On Dec. 10, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich found that a central felony charge in a large subset of the Jan. 6 cases had been properly invoked and was not unconstitutionally vague. This is likely a very big win for the government.
A look at the guilty pleas so far sheds light on who the defendants are, what their goals were, how evidence is being gathered, and how prosecutors and judges are coping with the largest federal criminal investigation in history.
The Justice Department argues that Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gives the judge in Michael Flynn’s case little leeway in dismissing the case against him. New research shows that the history behind this argument is wrong.