Storming Of Capitol Prosecutions
Overview: Legal Context
When people stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, they disrupted the certification of the Electoral College vote and forcibly entered Capitol grounds, assaulting law enforcement officers, damaging property, etc. The prosecutions have involved a variety of criminal statutes, such as:
Obstruction of an official proceeding (often via 18 U.S.C. § 1512 or similar statutes)
Civil disorder
Assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers
Entering or remaining in restricted buildings or grounds
Seditious conspiracy (for organized groups allegedly planning to prevent the peaceful transfer of power)
Related charges: unlawful possession of weapons, destruction of government property, conspiracy, etc.
Key issues in prosecutions include proving intent, which statutes apply, what counts as obstruction, what enhancements apply (use of weapons, violence, leadership roles), and ensuring due process.
Key Prosecutions & Case Law Examples
Here are more than five illustrative cases with significant legal issues, holdings, and sentences.
Case 1: Guy Wesley Reffitt
Facts: Reffitt was among the first to go on trial among the Jan. 6 defendants. He came armed (with a handgun), attempted to storm the Capitol grounds, interfered with police, and attempted to obstruct justice by threatening his children to discourage them from reporting him. He did not enter the Capitol building itself.
Charges: Multiple felony charges including obstruction of official proceeding, civil disorder, weapons offense, etc.
Outcome: He was convicted. Sentenced to 7 years and 3 months in prison.
Significance: This was one of the first trials to test the government's ability to prove obstruction without entry to the Capitol. It also tested scope of threats and weapons possession. Helps clarify what conduct gets serious felony charges even if the person does not go inside.
Case 2: Jacob Chansley (“QAnon Shaman”)
Facts: Jacob Chansley, known for his horned headdress and face paint, was highly visible during the riot. He entered the Senate chamber, left a note for Vice President Mike Pence.
Charges: Among other things, obstruction of an official proceeding.
Outcome: He pleaded guilty. Sentenced to 41 months in prison.
Significance: This case is symbolic and legally important for setting precedents on what entering the Senate chamber and symbolic acts inside mean under obstruction and other statutes. It shows sentencing for high visibility and intrusion into key parts of the Capitol institution.
Case 3: Enrique Tarrio and Proud Boys Leaders (Seditious Conspiracy Cases)
Facts: Senior leadership of the Proud Boys organization — including Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola — charged with organizing or conspiring to stop or hinder the certification of the 2020 election. These groups allegedly had advance planning, coordination, and leadership roles.
Charges: Seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings, assaulting law enforcement, etc
Outcome: Convictions of seditious conspiracy for multiple leaders. Tarrio got a long sentence (22 years) among the highest. Stewart Rhodes (leader of Oath Keepers) got 18 years.
Significance: These cases test use of the rarely used law of seditious conspiracy, which requires proving that the accused conspired to use force or unlawful means to oppose the U.S. government. They also set sentencing benchmarks for leadership roles in orchestrated violence.
Case 4: Peter Schwartz
Facts: Schwartz engaged in violent assault on officers with pepper spray, resisted law enforcement, etc. He was one of the rioters convicted on multiple felonies and misdemeanors for direct violent conduct.
Charges: Assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement using a dangerous weapon; civil disorder; other related charges.
Outcome: Sentenced to 14 years plus supervised release, restitution. At one point this was the longest sentence for a Capitol riot defendant until Tarrio’s 22‑year sentence.
Significance: Shows how serious sentences become when physical violence or use of weapons is involved. Also clarifies role of dangerous or lethal or less‑lethal weapons (pepper spray, shield) in elevating penalties.
Case 5: Ronald Sandlin
Facts: Sandlin was involved in storming the Capitol and pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count (obstructing an official proceeding), assaulting or impeding officers. He participated actively inside the Capitol.
Charges: Conspiracy to obstruct official proceeding; assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement; etc.
Outcome: He was sentenced to 63 months (5 years and 3 months) plus fines. Wikipedia
Significance: The case shows how plea agreements are used, what sentencing looks like for mid‑level actors (not leaders but not mere trespassers), and how assault charges add up significantly. Wikipedia
Case 6: Edward Kelley
Facts: Kelley was a U.S. Marine veteran who participated in the Capitol breach. Afterward, he was involved in plotting attacks on FBI offices and law enforcement.
Charges: Among others, civil disorder; destruction of government property; assaulting officers; later, conspiracy to murder federal employees, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, and influencing a federal official by threat.
Outcome: Kelley was sentenced to life in prison.
Significance: Extremely serious sentence showing that prosecutors can pursue additional crimes connected to post‑Jan. 6 plotting. Also, life sentences are rare and signal severity for those who combine violence, threats, conspiracy, and attack planning. It also shows cross‑over between Jan. 6 participation and further acts of violence afterward.
Legal Issues & Significant Precedents
Obstruction Under the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act / Statute: Many cases hinge on what “obstruction of an official proceeding” means. For example, Fischer v. United States (Supreme Court, 2024) required the government to show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of documents or objects used in the proceeding.
Use of Seditious Conspiracy: Rare in modern history, but Proud Boys & Oath Keepers’ cases reinvigorated use of this statute. Demonstrates proof of planning, coordination, violent intent.
Sentencing Factors: Courts take into account degree of violence, use of weapons, the high‑profile nature of conduct (entering the Senate chamber, threatening elected officials), leadership/organizational role, prior record. The sentencing ranging from misdemeanors (few days) to decades.
Current Status and Statistics
Over 1,200+ people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot.
Many pleas, some trials; hundreds of sentences handed down. Misdemeanor convictions for less serious offenses and long prison terms for violent or leadership cases.
The Supreme Court decision in Fischer may affect numerous pending convictions or charges involving the “obstruction of an official proceeding” count
Conclusion
The Jan. 6 prosecutions are unprecedented in scope. Courts have been testing old and rarely used statutes (seditious conspiracy), refining interpretations of obstruction, imposing serious penalties for violent participants, and differentiating between nonviolent participants and those who used force or planned coordination. The outcomes show how U.S. law treats both symbolic and physical disruptions of democratic process, and how leadership roles or weapons use significantly increase culpability and punishment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments