Two federal judges agreed Thursday to postpone criminal trials of suspects accused of breaching the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, agreeing that the upcoming inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump could make the proceedings unnecessary.
Despite the Justice Department’s objection, U.S. District Judges Carl Nichols and Rudolph Contreras — Trump and Obama appointees, respectively — said they wanted to preserve the court’s resources and avoid bringing in dozens of potential jurors for cases that could be heard within a few weeks could be canceled. .
It’s the first time federal judges have agreed to the Jan. 6 defendants’ demands for a delay pending possible pardons from Trump, who has pledged to grant clemency to many people charged for their roles in the attack on the Capitol .
“There is a real possibility of that happening,” Contreras said after granting defendant William Pope’s request for a stay.
Pope, who is representing himself, was scheduled to stand trial in December on misdemeanor charges. (A misdemeanor obstruction charge against him had already been dropped as a result of the Supreme Court’s June ruling on the matter.) Instead, Contreras is looking forward to court dates in late February.
Nichols similarly declined to set a date for the Jan. 6 trial of three defendants charged with misdemeanor charges of trespassing on the Capitol. Without prompting, he asked prosecutors whether they expected the trial to proceed even after Trump took over the Justice Department. When the prosecutor in the case was unable to provide confirmation either way, Nichols opted to set an April trial date and postpone all other deadlines, giving the Justice Department time to recalibrate after Trump took office. power came.
“As soon as the prosecutor requested a trial date, Judge Nichols confronted her and asked if she could assure the court that this case would go to trial once the new administration took office,” said Marina Medvin, an attorney for two of the defendants in Nichols’ courtroom. “Of course, the prosecutor could not provide such guarantees.”
Other judges on the federal court in DC had declined to go as far as Contreras and Nichols. Instead, they have described the defendants’ clemency requests as “speculative” and said the courts cannot address the “potential” for pardons, which is a function of the executive branch, not the judiciary.
Contreras acknowledged those decisions but said most of them were not made in cases that were headed to jury trials, which entails much more extensive preparation and days of time for citizens called to serve.
“I am focused on preserving the resources of the parties, the court and the citizens,” Contreras said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Benet Kearney pushed back, saying a handful of judges opted to uphold trial schedules despite the uncertainty caused by Trump’s inauguration. She said prosecutors planned to bring an “efficient” case that would address the judge’s concerns about the court’s resources.
“I’m not reconsidering,” Contreras replied.
