A "good news" update from this past week regarding Tyler Ethridge. Before I came in to take over Tyler's case he had agreed to and dong through a "Stipulated Bench Trial" which is really just a guilty plea without having to say the “Magic Words”  -- “I’m guilty.”
The counts of conviction were a felony “Civil Disorder” and a felony “Obstructing Congress.” He had four misdemeanor convictions in addition.
His sentencing was postponed after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Fischer v. U.S. which called into question the validity of the use of the “Obstructing Congress” statute. While that was pending, the sentencing report was created which set Tyler’s “Guideline Range” as 57-71 months based on the “Obstructing Congress” conviction.
The Court asked for a revised calculation as to what the sentencing range would be if the Supreme Court threw out the “Obstructing Congress” charge. The revision set the sentencing range at 18-24 months.
After the Supreme Court struck down the use of the statute in Fischer the Government agreed to dismiss the “Obstructing Congress” conviction, and asked for additional time to file a new Sentencing Statement. With three additional weeks the Government agreed the new range was 18-24 months, but argued that the protest on Jan. 6 was such a uniquely evil event, threatening the peaceful transfer of Presidential power, that a sentence closer to the higher original calculation was still called for. They dropped their prior recommendation, but only to 53 months.
So, for the Govt, the Supreme Court telling them that they had been wrong in using the obstruction statute in the context of a protest gone out of control, the only difference in the appropriate sentence was 7 months.
I had calculated the sentence guideline range differently, giving Tyler credit for 2 provisions that the Govt wanted to deny him – a combined reduction of 4 levels – and not imposing one increase the Govt wanted applied. The Judge agreed with me on two of the three issues, and in the end the Court determined the range to be 8-14 months, not 18-24 as claimed by the Govt.
The Govt still wanted 53 months even after losing the arguments on the individual enhancements.
The recommended guideline was low enough that Tyler was eligible for probation – it was an option open to the Court. I asked for a sentence of 24 months probation with the first 8 months to be served as “home detention” – the “lower end” of the range of 8-14 months.
I didn’t get precisely what I hoped for, but the sentence imposed was far far better than what the Government has requested. Tyler was sentenced to 7 months in custody, followed by 24 months of probation with the first 7 months served on “home detention.”  The combination of the two was 14 months – the top of the guideline range of 8-14 months.
With credits he will be eligible for, Tyler – the married father of two young daughters – will only be separated from his family for about 4 months.
I’ve been home for only 3 days, but I head back to DC on an overnight flight tomorrow.
At 2:00 pm on Tuesday 10/1, we will receive the verdict from the bench trial of Jay Kenyon, a trial from last March. Jay also faces a “civil disorder” felony and four misdemeanors. When we tried the case he was also charged with “Obstructing Congress.” After Fischer the Government dismissed that Count, but we still have to receive the verdict on the Civil Disorder felony. I’m highly confident we will be facing a similar sentencing argument if Jay is convicted – maybe. Jay’s sentencing hearing – if convicted – will likely not be until January.
As these cases go, the facts of Jay’s case were good. I’m not aware of a single defendant who has been acquitted on the Civil Disorder felony – 100% conviction rate I believe.
But no one had been acquitted at trial on a 1512 count before David Mehaffie in Sept. 2022.
And no one had been acquitted by a DC jury on all felonies before Michael Green in March. 2023.
And I don’t think anyone had been acquitted on a felony “property destruction” charge before Dova Winegeart in July, 2024.
I represented David, Michael (with Britt Redden), and Dova at trial.
Maybe Jay will be my “Golden Sombrero” of trial acquittals.
After Jay, I have sentencing hearings on both Wednesday and Thursday. The water might be a bit deeper in those two hearings. Both had 1512 convictions that have now been dismissed. But the Govt is fighting for long sentences still.
Several new clients since the last update – the work goes on and the need for financial support remains unchanged.
Thanks to all for what you have given already, and what more you might be able to give.

It’s been more than 6 weeks since the last update. It was a very busy summer for January 6 clients, and the fall is no different. The next 6 weeks in particular are very hectic.

There is simply no way to disguise this – both the DOJ and the Courts are bound and determined to force outcomes in as many January 6 cases as possible before the Nov. election. Former President Trump has announced that if he wins in Nov. among the very first things he is going to do is provide some remedy for the vast majority of Jan. 6 defendants. I’m not going to speculate about what line he might draw with regard to who the defendants are he intends to help, but some of his campaign comments state an unambiguous intention to start looking on a case-by-case basis starting the day after the election. But he won’t have any authority to act until his inauguration and I do not expect the Biden DOJ will slow down their efforts after the election regardless of the outcome.

The J6 Fund has been heavily impacted by the extensive work during the summer. This included three trials in the span of about 9 weeks. One of those trial resulted in the acquittal of Dova Winegeart on the only felony charge against her.

In addition, several defendants opted to accept plea offers made to them. Their circumstances are such that they will likely end up benefitting from a Trump win.

A handful of defendants were also sentenced over the past 10 weeks. We were fortunate in the fact that all received relatively modest sentences – no custody time in any misdemeanor case, and longest prison sentence imposed was only 18 months.

But looking forward, my calendar for the next 8 weeks looks like this:

Sept. 25 – two sentencing hearings

Oct. 1 – reading of verdict from bench trial

Oct. 2 – sentencing hearing

Oct. 10 – trial.

Oct. 16 – trial.

Oct. 18 – sentencing hearing

Oct. 23 – reading of verdict from bench trial

Nov. 12 – trial

Nov. 15 – sentencing hearing

That is 4 trip to DC in the next 8 weeks – 3 in the next 4 weeks. Mixed in there but not listed is a trial in Hawaii on Oct. 28 that is not Jan 6 related. That is the only reason I don’t have any J6 matters between Oct. 23 and Nov. 12 – I’ll be tied up in the Hawaii case.

After Thanksgiving I have two Jan6 trials on back-to-back weeks in December – the 2nd and 10th.

Mixed in with all those APPEARANCES are probably 5x that many filing deadlines, including two appeals briefs.

Not referenced anywhere in that list are efforts for several J6 defendants now in prison to get their sentences reduced based on the Supreme Court’s Fischer decision.

The prospect of a Trump win in Nov. seems to have taken away some of the urgency that supporters have previously felt in helping me be able to do this work for Jan6 defendants who otherwise could not afford counsel of their choice. The flow of contributions has slowed in the second half of the summer – at just the same time that DOJ and the Court began to increase the pace at which the cases were being pushed forward.

Right now the finances are looking pretty bleak. Hopefully a Trump win in November will bring all of this to a conclusion – but there is much work to be done between now and then and not every client is in a position to gamble his/her future on Trump winning.

Any help you might be able to give now would be greatly appreciated.

This message is an electronic "hat-in-hand" appeal. If you are receiving this message I know you have already been generous with one or more donations to fund this effort. But right now there are cross-currents at work that seem to be making fundraising more of a "swimming upstream effort" than0 has been true in the past. One the one hand there has been a general sense of growing confidence -- maybe a bit less this week -- that former POTUS Trump is a likely winner in the election coming up in three months, and that will bring change at DOJ and an end to these prosecutions. But, on the other hand, the DOJ is ramping up its efforts to file more new cases than ever, and get as many filed cases to disposition by guilty plea or trial as is possible over these next 100 days. My calendar is packed with trials and sentencing hearings from now until the end of Oct. If all happen as scheduled I'll have six more trips to DC in the next 3 months.

But the sense of possible victory by Pres. Trump seems to have contributed to a feeling of less urgency in keeping this work going without interruption or financial hiccup. As was true in 2023, the early months of 2024 were a bit of a struggle but we got through them okay. Then contributions picked up in May and June -- just as they did in 2023. But July has seen a decline of about 30% over May and June -- unlike 2023. At the same time the Fischer decision came out of the Supreme Court which has triggered more work in some cases that were pending, as well as causing a handful of new clients to come my way looking for some help in realizing a benefit from the Fischer decision for convictions under Sec. 1512 for "obstructing Congress" that they had already suffered. That work is on top of the cases still pending in the district court waiting for trial or sentencing.

So we are playing a bit of "catch-up" from July given a busy August already on the calendar. Two trials and 4-5 sentencing hearings depending on how some Fischer-related issues work themselves out. There is another trial right after Labor day, and then Sept. slows down a bit, but I expect that is when much of the Fischer-related work will really kick in.

If you are able and wish to continue to support the work being done on behalf of January 6 defendants who cannot afford to pay for counsel of their choice, my clients and the fund would greatly appreciate that support now.

As has been mentioned here, last week Dova Winegeart was acquitted at trial on a count of felony destruction of government property (more than $1000 in damage) and four misdemeanor charges based on her presence at the Capitol and her conduct on January 6.  She was convicted on one misdemeanor of "attempting" to damage Govt property without any finding as to the "damage" she cause.
The verdicts were based on a failure of proof by the Govt on key elements of each of the charged offenses.
This wasn't an "Atticus Finch" moment, but the shortcomings in the Govt case -- compared to the elements of the offenses charged -- were obvious to me from the start and I went into the case with fairly high confidence as to what the outcome would be.
Dova had paid the life savings of her family to other attorneys prior to seeking out my help.  Her case was not complicated and it was NEVER a $75,000 or $100,000 case.  Charging those kinds of fees in these single-defendant cases is unconscionable.  I have known this from the start, and its why I knew that with a high enough volume of cases I could do dozens of them based on fundraising alone.
But even though there is hope on the horizon in a few different forms, the following also remains true -- I have nearly three dozen clients still in the clutches of DOJ and the Courts, and the work for them is not going away, not for now anyway:
Nathan H -- trial
William P -- trial
Kevin T -- trial
Nathan T -- trial
Deb L -- trial
David K -- trial
Steve B -- trial
Dean H -- trial
Michael H -- trial
Rich S -- trial
Paul G -- trial
Wayne S -- trial
Trina R -- new case
Lee G -- new case
Jack R -- new case
Troy S -- new case
Jay K -- verdict pending
Edward A -- Sentencing
Dom J -- Sentencing
Tyler E -- Sentencing
Jeremy G -- Sentencing
Mike O -- Sentencing
Rob M -- Appeal
Tony S -- Appeal
Tara S. -- Post-Fischer relief
Dale S. -- Post-Fischer relief
Eric M. -- Post-Fischer relief
Jacob C -- Post-Fischer relief
Josh L -- Post-Fischer relief
Gil F -- Post-Fischer relief
Kevin G -- Post-Fischer relief
Dan G -- Post-Fischer relief
Idiots come on X from time to time and claim that I'm getting rich doing work for J6 clients through the fundraising that allows me to handle the cases above.
As I've repeatedly explained, some of the individuals above have been able to contribute to the costs of their defense -- they give what they can -- but no one has been in a position to cover it all.
Some have raised money and contributed it for the benefit of themselves and others.
But not a single one has ever received a bill from me for services rendered or costs incurred.
I said in response to one such idiot that the fundraising only works if there is transparency -- "Show your work."
All my clients' cases and their case numbers are listed on the GiveSendGo fundraising site. There also is a website that gets less attention but that is going to be updated as well with a complete roster of all current clients.
I rep'd more than 60 people in connection with J6 charges.
I have 32 who are still clients.
My work is only half done.  The financial support from those who feel J6 defendants should have some choice in who represents them -- even when they can't afford it -- is what allows me to keep doing this work in this fashion.
They all hope for an outcome like Dova got.  That's my goal in every case.

On July 9, James Schubert was sentenced to 18 months in custody after having pled guilty to one count of "assaulting, impeding, interfering, etc" a law enforcement officer during the J6 protest.  The interaction with the officer was relatively benign by comparison to some of the things that were happening around him. But the issues we confronted at sentencing had as much to do with other conduct during the course of more than 2 hours that James was at the Capitol with his elderly parents -- most notably the very bad judgment he exercised when he assisted them in climbing up, into, and through a broken window to enter the Capitol.  It's one of those moments in life we all live to regret -- turning around was the only "right" option there.  But in addition to that, there were other episodes where James was captured on video that showed a level of "enthusiasm" -- for lack of a better word -- that was hard to escape from when the Judge was considering all of his conduct throughout the course of his time at the Capitol.  The Government sought a sentence of 27 months, and we asked for a sentence of 14 months that would have made him eligible for a period of home detention rather than incarceration.  Probation recommended 21 months   The Judge agreed with me that the "offense conduct" -- some jostling and pushing with one officer -- was towards the "mild" end of the spectrum of conduct, but it was the overall attitude of disregard with respect to the events around him and his lack of concern for the welfare of his parents that he could not overlook, leading to the sentence of 18 months.  With various credits he will be entitled to, it appears that James will likely serve only about 7 months in a low security facility such as a federal "camp."

A more positive result was achieved in the trial of Dova Winegeart.  This was a short case lasting only one day, with only a couple of key factual disputes left to be resolved by the judge in a bench trial.  Both were resolved in favor of Ms. Winegeart, leading her to be found "not guilty" of a felony of destroying government property, and not guilty of four misdemeanors of being present in a "restricted" area and committing an "act of physical violence" on the Capitol grounds.  Some of the issues were "technical" legal issues involving the language of the statutes involved and a lack of significant evidence on one or two key issues.  It was one of those cases where an experienced criminal litigator can zero in on something that seems to be missing and recognize that as the path to a good outcome.  But you need to 1) see the issue, and 2) understand how to exploit that issue for the ultimate benefit of the client.  I did so by filing a motion to dismiss identifying the problem.  I did not win that motion because it dealt with a claim made by the Govt in another case -- who broke a particular window -- and the evidence reflected in discovery about Ms. Winegeart did or did not do.  The Judge denied the motion -- correctly -- on the basis that the issue of what evidence might make it into trial, and how that evidence might be considered, were questions that could only be answered at trial. BUT, the purpose of the motion was to raise the issue and "educate" the Judge on what I saw as a defect in the case.
The acquittals of Ms. Winegeart on the only felony against her -- for destruction of public property -- and a four misdemeanors tied to her conduct, were all a downstream result of the work done prior to the trial that called attention to these problems.
Mr. Schubert was able to contribute some funds to the costs of defending his case.  Ms. Winegeart had paid a significant amount of money in attorneys fees to counsel who represented her before I did.  When she came to me to take over her case for trial back in Feb. she had nothing left. She is a bakery owner in a small town in Oklahoma.  So the costs incurred in defending her at trial have been covered by contributions to this fund.
The month of July has been pretty lean in terms of donations. Only about $3000 has been raised in the 2+ weeks of July, and several times that amount has been spent.  With the two proceedings taking place back-to-back, this has been an 8 day trip from start to finish.  So the Fund is again hovering near empty, and a busy month of August is ahead.  Any donations would be greatly appreciated now.

Cases pending with no trial date:
United States v. Baker
United States v. Giobbie
United States v. Harshman
United States v. Hennessey
United States v. Reyes
United States v. Ryan
United States v. Spackman
United States v. Stutts

Case with upcoming trial dates:
United States v. Hughes
United States v. Kuntz
United States v. Lee
United States v. Pepe
United States v. Snoots
United States v. Tuck
United States v. Slaughter
United States v. Winegeart

Cases pending verdict:
United States v. Kenyon

Cases pending sentencings:
United States v. Amyot
United States v. Etheridge
United States v. Groseclose
United States v. Jakubowski
United States v. Oliveras
United States v. Schubert

Cases pending appeal:
United States v. Greene
United States v. Minuta
United States v. Sargent

Cases pending Fischer
United States v. Chansley
United States v. Fonticoba
United States v. Munchel
United States v. Ochs

More updates to come.

Every day the Biden DOJ continues to charge and arrest people in connection with their presence at the Capitol on January 6.
With the online commentary about the expectation that FPOTUS Trump will pardon J6 offenders if he is re-elected, a sentiment seems to have creeped in that the need for legal help is diminished because of that.
But the reality is that the Biden DOJ has amped up its efforts both with respect to new cases and cases that are already pending.
I've said many times that I've been contacted continuously about providing legal help since January, and that continues right up to 2 days ago.
Two clients were just indicted today.
Even though the sense of urgency to provide help seems to have declined, the "facts on the ground" are that I'm being pressed by the Govt to do more work than ever, and I have more people than ever asking for my help because they can't afford an attorney to represent them.
I have five trials scheduled in the next 80 days -- 6 trips total  to DC before the end of September.
DOJ is not going to let up until they are forced to do so.
I've also committed myself to help several defendants who were not previously my clients figure out how they can/will benefit from a favorable decision in Fischer.  That work begins next week.
So, this is a particular moment where financial assistance for these clients would be timely.     The needle on the fundraising account is fast approaching "empty" and there are many costs that will be incurred in the very near future.
On behalf of my clients, Mr. AmEx, my electric utility, and my dog and cat, your help is greatly appreciated.

I've been asked many times here how many J6 cases I've "won". My answer is always the same -- it depends on how you define "winning" in an arena where DOJ is obtaining 99.85% convictions, with only 2 out of nearly 1400 cases have seen the defendants walk away fully acquitted of charges filed against them. Only one other defendant has escaped a felony conviction when a felony was charged -- my client Michael Greene.  

 When I talk to all new clients, I give them the bad news first -- after 1400 cases, if you harbor a belief that you'll be No. 3 to walk away without a conviction, you're only fooling yourself. Any lawyer who tries to sell you that line is lying to you.  

In those conversations I suggest to the client that the better approach is to decide on the "least bad" outcome, and then try to achieve that. Focus our efforts on what is possible, not what is impossible. Loosely defined, that is going to be the least number of months possible in custody.  

A "win" or "loss" is probably best measured by the difference in the sentence the Govt asks for compared to what the Court imposes.  

The effort to drive that number down begins with the very first court appearance. I've handled 19 cases that have advanced through sentencing. The chart below gives some of the details regarding those outcome so judge for yourself the "wins" I have achieved.  

Seven times the Govt has asked for sentences of greater than 5 years. Only 3 times has a client of mine received more than 5 years (one received exactly 5). One of those was a case where I was not involved in the trial -- I took over just prior to sentencing and there wasn't much that could be done - he got the 88 months the Govt asked for.  

I have asked for probation 8 times, and my client received it 4 times. All 4 that failed were in the same family, with the same judge, and were together doing the same things on Jan 6. The Judge just wasn't going to give them probation for what she found they did while inside the Capitol.

Against what the Govt requested, I've had outcomes that were sentence (in months) was less than what the Govt requested in the following amounts: -150, -99, -60, -48, -15, -11, and -6.   

That's a collective 32 years less in prison for those 7 clients than what the Govt asked for.

Starting to pick up some additional clients for work that will come -- hopefully -- in the aftermath of a favorable outcome in Fischer v. United States on the Sec. 1512(c)(2) "Obstruction" count.

These are J6 defendants who are almost all now in federal prison and will be entitled to some form of relief if the "obstruction" charge is thrown out by the Supreme Court in the next 3-4 weeks when the Fischer opinion should come down.

As I've mentioned here before, and wrote about on my Substack page, the remedies here are not automatic, and how a J6 Defendant might benefit will depend on how their case was resolved in the District Court. Some will be simple, others not so simple.

And it is clear already that the Govt is going to look for alternative sentencing arguments to try and keep in place the sentences previously imposed -- even though those sentences were ONLY imposed because of unlawful sentencing options that in many cases the Govt forced upon defendants when they entered into plea agreements.

Three J6 defendants now in BOP facilities contacted me this week for help -- they do not want their prior counsel assisting them. I have three defendants who I represented who should be eligible for resentencing. I have already committed to helping 4 others -- including Eric Munchel, whose mother asked if I could help try to get his sentenced reduced after Fischer.

You know who recommended me to these three J6 defendants in custody? Other clients of mine who are serving time with them.

Does that sound like people who think I screwed the over in the way I handled their case, or were unhappy at the end of the day with my representation even though they were convicted?

There is another well-known defendant who wants nothing to do with his trial counsel. He's rep'd by a federal defender on his appeal. He regularly communicates with me for advice and whether his federal defender is doing what needs to be done in order for him to benefit from Fischer. I've offered to take over his appeal, but for now he doesn't want to add his case to my plate if his current attorney is doing what needs to be done. I had several text messages from him on Friday.

Some seem to suggest that I'm "grifting" because I raise money online to be able to do this work.

But who has the risk in this effort? Who stands to lose after putting in the time and effort, and incurring the expenses to travel, if that online fundraising comes up short?

There is no deep pocketed "sugar daddy" behind this operation. When Mr. AmEx needs to be paid, and the fundraising account is empty, the money comes out of my pocket.

I haven't turned down a single J6 defendant based on financial considerations. The last two trials I was in were for two J6 defendants who had no funds to offer. Combined I spent 9 nights in DC hotel rooms and made two round-trips. Plus about 100 hours of time in trial prep and the actual trials themselves.

If I can't raise money here, on Substack and on GiveSendGo, then I can't do this work pro bono -- meaning free to the J6 Defendants.

"X" accounts who supposedly support J6 defendants but make idiotic attacks on me only make what I'm doing harder.

Search my timeline -- look for any ATTORNEY who has worked with me on J6 cases, and whether they have criticized my work or the outcomes I've achieved. Having rep'd 59 -- +2 since earlier this week -- there are dozens of defense attorneys who have been in cases where we have had co-defendants.

What non-attorneys say about me -- or even attorneys who do not specialize in federal criminal defense work like I have for 30+ years -- is uninformed and often simply wrong.

So, that's the pitch. I can continue to bring my experience and insights gained since 1992 when I joined DOJ into the D.C. courthouse for the benefit of J6 Defendants -- or not.

But the only way it works is with the financial assistance from those who want J6 defendants without resources to have quality legal representation.

Trina Reyes from Houston called me on Friday asking for my help. I'll be appearing with her on Tuesday morning at 6:30 am via Zoom from my kitchen table in Hawaii.

Leo was convicted on all counts after a bench trial in Sept. 2023.  It was something of an odd trial in that I began the opening statement with an admission that Leo was guilty on eight of the ten counts against him. We weren’t there to deny the obvious -- he was wearing distinctive clothing that made him easy to identify on video, and there was a large amount of video evidence that captured him inside and around the Capitol.  This included evidence of him breaking two windows at the time of the initial breach into the Senate Wing doors at 2:13 pm.  

But we Leo was unwilling to plead guilty on the terms offered by the DOJ, and he was unwilling to admit he "assaulted” any police officers as the offer made by DOJ would have required.  So we went to trial, but only on those two issues.

After 3 days of testimony, Judge Bates convicted Leo on both of the remaining counts.

One of two counts that we contested at trial was the “Obstruction of Congress” charge.  I
The trial took place before the Supreme Court agreed to even hear the Fischer case which is now pending.  I had filed a motion to dismiss that count – it may have been my first comprehensive motion on the count – which was denied by Judge Bates in a long and thorough opinion.   

The second count we contested was an “assault” count where Leo was in the first line of people on the stairs leading up to the Upper Terrace, where the path of the crowd was blocked by a line of 6-8 officers.  When the crowd behind him surged forward, Leo “surged” forward along with them.  The issue was whether Leo was leading the charge past the police, or if Leo was simply pushed forward by the crowd behind him.  None of the officers at that location were injured by what happened at that moment in time.

But there was no real dispute over what happened after Leo reached the building, or for the next 40 minutes that followed while he remained inside.  The CCTV video captured pretty much every moment he was there.  

While the outcome of the trial was not surprising given all that we knew going in, it was quite a shock when the DOJ asserted that the “Terrorism Enhancement” under the Guidelines should apply because Leo was guilty of destroying government property with the goal of altering government policy.  In DOJ’s view, breaking two windows on Jan. 6 was analogous to flying a commercial airliner into downtown high rise office buildings.

When the probation report was produced, it recommended a Guideline Range of 210 to 240 months – 17 to 20 years.  Regardless of what you might have read elsewhere (those reports are wrong) the Govt has only asked for the Terrorism Enhancement for 6 other Jan 6 defendants – the five defendants in the main “Proud Boys’ case, and for a defendant named Shane Jenkins.  It was applied to the five Proud Boy defendants, but Judge in Jenkins’ case did not apply it him.
And now Leo Bozell – because he broke out two windows and walked around inside the Capitol for more than 30 minutes.  He engaged in no other criminal activity while inside, and he was alone the entire time.

When DOJ filed it Sentencing Statement, it did not ask for a sentence within the Guideline Range – it only asked for 140 months, or just a little less than 12 years.  

In our Sentencing Statement, we asked for 30 months.  

The trial was in September and the sentencing was on May 17.  In between was a tremendous amount of work that led to the filing of two very long sentencing statements by each side, and three different delays to address issues as they arose.  

In between the Supreme Court took up the Fischer case, and the oral argument strongly suggested that myself and other defense counsel have been correct all along in our reading of the statute, with the Supreme Court seems likely to throw out that charge.  That means our defense in Leo’s case was entirely over whether he pushed the officers aside at the top of the steps, or he was himself pushed by the crowd on the stairs behind him.

And that question was the difference between facing the “Terrorism Enhancement” at sentencing or not.  Had Leo accepted the plea offer and pled guilty, he would not have been only the 7th defendant to face the “Terrorism Enhancement.”

But from the very beginning of the sentencing hearing it was clear that Judge Bates didn’t see the application of the enhancement the way the DOJ saw it.  He gave the DOJ plenty of opportunities to convince him of their view, but he never seemed inclined to go along.  After disposing of that, and bringing the discussion to the issue of what sentence was appropriate without that, he acknowledged that Fischer might go in favor of defendants.  He also made clear that the confrontation at the top of the stairs – whether Leo “assaulted” the officers there or not – was a very close call for him at trial, and the evidence was simply not that severe.  But under a technical reading of that statute – which makes it illegal to “assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere” with police -- his conduct at the top of the stairs did violate that statute.  

So we ALMOST won that at trial.     

In the end, Judge Bates imposed a sentence of 45 months – 15 months higher than what we had asked for, but 15 months lower than Probation had recommended, and 95 MONTHS LESS that what DOJ wanted.  

I have a long update below that I wrote several months ago about what a “win” looks like in these cases where the conviction rate is around 99.80%.  
Wins are measured in terms of sentences imposed compared to risk faced by the client at sentencing.  

Had we gotten the sentence of 30 months we asked for, that would have been a “A+ Win”

After what we had to fight through – and what Leo was facing before walking into Court yesterday -- 45 months is a “B+ Win.”  

With various credits Leo will be eligible for under BOP programs, I expect he’ll serve around 20-22 months – maybe less.  

As for the Fund’s role, Leo had the means to pay some amounts for the cost of his defense through fundraising.  But the amounts he was not able to pay was covered by contributions to the Fund – just like I’ve been able to do for 55 other Jan 6 clients.  

I have another 20+ still with their cases unresolved – including about a dozen indicted in the last 6 months as DOJ seems to be in a hurry to get cases in the pipeline before the November election.  Much work remains over the next 6-8 months – at least.

A busy time from April to July is starting to come into focus.
In addition, five new J6 defendants reached out and asked for my help with their case. I’ve added them to the list below.
But just so there is no misunderstanding of the road ahead, I thought it might be a good time for a status “rundown” on the J6 defendants you are supporting and what comes next in their cases.

Existing Clients with felony trial dates already set:
U.S. v. Jay Kenyon – bench trial concluded Mar. 14 – awaiting verdict.
U.S. v. Lucas Denney – Appeal oral argument on Mar. 8.  Awaiting decision.
U.S. v. William Pepe – trial starting May 20
U.S. v. Dova Weingart – trial starting June 10
U.S. v. Nathan Hughes – trial starting July 15
U.S. v. Kevin and Nate Tuck – trial starting Sept. 9
U.S. v. Kevin Slaughter – trial starting Nov. 11 (tentative)
U.S. v. Anthony Sargent – Appeal Brief due May 8.
U.S. v. Nicholas Von Keudell – Sentencing April 2.
U.S. v. Michael Olivares – Sentencing April 19.
U.S. v. Leo Bozell – Sentencing May 2.
U.S. v. John Schubert – Change of Plea April 11.
U.S. v. Micheal Green – Appeal brief due mid-summer. No jail time imposed at sentencing.
U.S. v. Dominic Jakobowski – No trial date set.
U.S. v. Edward Amyot – No trial date set.
U.S. v. Jeremy Groseclose – sentencing postponed until after SCOTUS decides Sec. 1512 issue.

New Clients Since Jan. 1:
U.S. v. Steve Baker – Blaze Media Reporter who has exposed corruption inside US Cap. Police.
U.S. v. Lee Stutts
U.S. v. David Kuntz
U.S. v. Lewis Snoots
U.S. v. Lee Giobbie
U.S. v. Tyler Ethridge
U.S. v. Tara Stottlemeyer and Dale Shalvey
That is 26 current Jan. 6 defendants who are being supported almost entirely by contributions to this Fund. There are two other individuals wih whom I have discussed coming into their case. I expect that will happen but there are a few details to be worked out. So that would be 28.
If you have followed my efforts on behalf of Jan. 6 defendants, you likely know that I began this work in the fall of 2021. Below is a list of Jan. 6 defendants whose cases have been concluded. I have not included the 5-6 defendants who decided they wanted to change attorneys – I don’t want it to be said that any fundraising was done using the names of individuals who opted to seek other legal representation.
Concluded Cases:
U.S. v. David Mehaffie
U.S. v. Nathan DeGrave
U.S. v. James McGrew
U.S. v. Chris Worrell
U.S. v. Salvador Sandoval
U.S. v. Daniel Phipps
U.S. v. Isiah Matson
U.S. v. Tyler Tew
U.S. v. Damon Beckley
U.S. v. Linwood Robinson Sr., Linwood Robinson II, Benjamin Robinson, and Brittany Robinson
U.S. v. Jacob Chansley
U.S. v. Brian Mock
Those 15 are added to the 28 above, for a total of 43. As noted that doesn’t include the handful of others who opted to seek other representation, so there have been more than 50 total. But while I did represent those individuals my work was supported financially by the contributions to this fund.
As I’ve said online, I’ll continue to do this as long as I don’t go broke in the process. The work is important and I try to limit myself to clients who lack the financial resources to fund their own defense. It works in the same way a collection plate works on Sundays – if you have it in your heart and are able, you support the cause. Some give less, some give more. The clients contribute when they are able. I don’t ask anyone to take out a loan on their house or dip into the savings for their kids’ college education.
So far we’ve made it work.

Last week was the bench trial of J6 Defendant Jay Kenyon from southern Virginia. Jay has a Masters in Public Administration from James Madison University and was advocating for Congress to follow the "Eastman Plan" on January 6 - delay certification for 15 days until audits of the battleground states could be conducted. He traveled alone, went to the Stop The Steal Rally, walked to the Capitol, and went inside the Capitol alone - not part of any group. Inside he simply walked around for approximately 30 minutes until he was caught up in the effort by law enforcement to forcibly "herd" everyone out of the Great Rotunda. The Complaint Affidavit that was the basis for his arrest alleged that he possessed a knife and threatened officers with it. Given that he did nothing else out of the ordinary while inside, I'm 100% convinced the knife allegation is why he was charged with two felonies. The only problem is that the knife story was wrong -- 100% wrong -- and the prosecution and its key witness ADMITTED during the trial that video evidence showed it was 100% wrong. Jay didn't have a knife and never threatened or menaced any officer with a knife. I'm convinced that obvious error is the only reason he faced two felonies in the indictment. The trial went very well and we are cautiously optimistic regarding the outcome. It was a bench trial so we expect to return to court in a few weeks for the verdicts. Three more trial coming up in May and June. And we are going "pedal to the metal" with the defenses of journalists Nathan Hughes and Steve Baker.

Last week was the bench trial of J6 Defendant Jay Kenyon from southern Virginia. Jay has a Masters in Public Administration from James Madison University and was advocating for Congress to follow the "Eastman Plan" on January 6 - delay certification for 15 days until audits of the battleground states could be conducted. He traveled alone, went to the Stop The Steal Rally, walked to the Capitol, and went inside the Capitol alone - not part of any group. Inside he simply walked around for approximately 30 minutes until he was caught up in the effort by law enforcement to forcibly "herd" everyone out of the Great Rotunda. The Complaint Affidavit that was the basis for his arrest alleged that he possessed a knife and threatened officers with it. Given that he did nothing else out of the ordinary while inside, I'm 100% convinced the knife allegation is why he was charged with two felonies. The only problem is that the knife story was wrong -- 100% wrong -- and the prosecution and its key witness ADMITTED during the trial that video evidence showed it was 100% wrong. Jay didn't have a knife and never threatened or menaced any officer with a knife. I'm convinced that obvious error is the only reason he faced two felonies in the indictment. The trial went very well and we are cautiously optimistic regarding the outcome. It was a bench trial so we expect to return to court in a few weeks for the verdicts. Three more trial coming up in May and June. And we are going "pedal to the metal" with the defenses of journalists Nathan Hughes and Steve Baker.

Since the last update in mid-January, the January 6 Legal Defense Fund has provided the funding for us to take on several new clients, including clients who were unhappy with their previous attorney and needed a change, several clients who were just recently charged, and one client who was only weeks away from representing himself at sentencing after having been unhappy with the appointed attorney who had represented him at trial. I’ve now represented 53 individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6.
But the most important new client supported by donors to the Fund is Tara Stottlemyer. Tara is currently serving an 8-month sentence in a Philadelphia BOP facility – 500 miles away from her 11 month old daughter. Tara had a “favorable” outcome of her case – relatively speaking – when she received only an 8-month sentence. But just days after she surrendered to the BOP in early December 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to determine whether 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 is  being improperly applied to the events of January 6. A single count under Sec. 1512 is what has Tara in custody. If the Supreme Court dismisses that charge then Tara’s entire sentence will be illegal – she’ll be in prison for actions that are not criminal. The problem is the Supreme Court’s decision will not come until late June – close in time to when Tara would be scheduled for release if she serves her entire sentence. So the Fund has supported my efforts to find a vehicle by which we could seek to have her released on bail until the Supreme Court decides the case that might set her free altogether. Such a motion is now pending with the Court.
Tara and her husband Dale are the operators of the small family farm who donors here helped to prevent from going bankrupt. Dale is taking care of their daughter while Tara is in custody – Dale is set to begin a prison sentence in August – but was not able to manage all the operations of their small farm on his own at the same time. But the financial support he received from donors to this fund, as well as other small farmers who traveled at their own expense to help him, that crisis was averted. All our attention now is on Tara. After that I plan to take up Dale’s case.
As the Government has increased the pace of indictments over the past 6 months, my phone has continued to ring with newly charged defendants asking me to represent them. Included in those new clients are journalist Steve Baker with Blaze Media. Steve and I first spoke back in November about me representing him if  the DOJ did, in fact, opt to charge him. That happened last week so we are off to the races now in his case.
The last case I want to mention is a call I had just days ago from a gentleman who testified before the January 6 committee. He attended the events of January 6 and was later subpoenaed to testify by the Committee. He did what he had to do and answered their questions.
Now DOJ has charged him as well. In addition to these cases, I have taken on another 5 new clients over the past 8 weeks.
I leave on March 8 for a two-week trip to DC that will involve a trial, two sentencing hearings, and a change of plea. That’s another roundtrip airfare, 12 nights in DC hotels, and the various living expenses that go along with hotel life.
Nearly all of my clients – there are a small number of exceptions – are not able to fund the cost of the legal defense. The only way I am able to do these cases – and continue to take new clients – is with the support of the donors to this Fund.
With what I have now, I fully expect to continue this work throughout the remainder of 2024.
What 2025 might bring – we’ll all have to wait to see.

Sentencing of Israel Matson

Israel's case was resolved by an agreement prior to indictment. He agreed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count of "Demonstrating, Parading, etc.," in the Capitol. There were no promises made with respect to his sentence.

Israel was inside the Capitol for approximately 30 minutes -- between 2:30 and 3:00. In that time he was in the Speaker's Lobby just minutes before the fatal shooting of Ashlii Babbitt, and had departed prior to the shooting taking place.

During his 30 minutes inside Israel simply walked around. He was looking for family members he had come to DC with in order to attend the Stop The Steal rally. They had been separated in the crowd on the way to the Capitol, and Israel was not able to reach them by phone.  

He entered the Capitol through an open door where members of the Capitol Police were standing. He did not claim that the police encouraged him to enter -- he simply did not see them making any effort to prevent or discourage people from using the door to either enter or exit the Capitol.

  Prior to exiting the building at 3:00 pm, another protester asked to borrow the bullhorn Israel was carrying, and Israel did so. After getting back his bullhorn -- and after word began to circulate in the crowd that a shooting had happened -- Israel left the building. He was able to make contact with his family members and they all departed DC shortly thereafter.

For these actions, the Government sought a sentence of 2 years probation, with a condition that he serve 14 days of intermittent confinement -- basically 7 weekends in jail from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon.  

Israel's sentencing hearing was only days after Ray Epps was sentenced to one year of probation with no time in custody. Not surprisingly, this was what I led with in arguing for Israel to receive a sentence no more severe than that given to Epps.

In the end, Israel was sentenced to one year of probation, with a condition that the first 45 days be served under home confinement. 

In the past few weeks I have taken on four new cases -- and maybe a fifth as of today. These include a particularly vexing problem of trying to get Tara Stottlemeyer -- a young woman with a relatively short sentence -- out of custody immediately. Her only count of conviction is the Sec. 1512 charge, the "obstructing congress" count that is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Her sentence is short enough that she might serve all of it before the Supreme Court rules. If the ruling is in favor of the defense, she wouldn't have any sentence at all.  

When she went into custody in Dec. 2023, she was separated from her 10 month old daughter. 

There are several avenues that might lead to her early -- maybe immediate -- release but none of them are guaranteed. Hopefully there might be positive news in the next few days.  

I've also taken on three new cases that seem to be headed to trial, as well as taking over a matter for purposes of sentencing for a defendant who was representing himself. Those new cases are listed below.  

Finally, there is the matter of journalist Steven Baker. Steve covered the first Oath Keeper trial on a daily basis, and has immersed himself in the video evidence for not just that case, but the broader Jan6 events of the day. Steve is one of the journalists who has been given access by the GOP House leadership to the much larger library of video evidence that has not yet been made public. Steve has been working with House Committee staff members in reviewing the video and helping them to understand in greater detail the way events unfolded over the course of the day.

Steve was told more than two years ago that DOJ was preparing to indict him for his presence at the Capitol on January 6 -- where he captured the events on video just the same as dozens of other journalists. For over two years nothing further happened, but in December he was contacted again and told his indictment and arrest were imminent.  

Steve and I had been in contact for many months with respect to his review of video evidence, and he contacted me to represent him shortly after the December call from the FBI. Myself along with a small team of attorneys will be representing Steve if DOJ's threat ever becomes a reality.