[KARAH RUCKER]

MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE CONVICTED ON CHARGES RELATED TO JAN. 6 COULD HAVE THEIR SENTENCES CHANGED AFTER AN APPEALS COURT TOSSED A PORTION OF ONE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE. 

THE DEFENDANT – RETIRED AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT COLONEL “LARRY BROCK JUNIOR” PICTURED HERE IN THE GREEN HELMET INSIDE THE CAPITOL – APPEALED HIS FELONY CONVICTION OF “OBSTRUCTING THE WORK OF CONGRESS” ON JANUARY SIXTH.

WHILE THE D.C. PANEL OF THREE DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES UPHELD THE CONVICTION –

THEY RULED  BROCK SHOULD NOT HAVE FACED A STIFFER – OR “ENHANCED” –  SENTENCE RELATED TO THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE.

THE COURT’S RULING STATES

“Brock’s interference with one stage of the electoral college vote-counting process — while no doubt endangering our democratic processes and temporarily derailing Congress’s constitutional work — did not interfere with the ‘administration of justice.’”

ACCORDING TO A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MORE THAN 100 OTHER JAN. 6 PRISONERS HAD THEIR SENTENCES SHAPED BY THIS “SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT” –

WHICH INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF PRISON TIME THAT A JUDGE CAN HAND DOWN.

THE ATTORNEY SAYS THOSE JAN. 6 PRISONERS WITH THE SAME CHARGE CAN NOW ASK TO BE RESENTENCED.

AND WHILE THE APPEALS COURT HERE COULD CHANGE THE SENTENCES OF MORE THAN 100 DEFENDANTS –

ANOTHER APPEAL THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL CONSIDER THIS MONTH COULD CHANGE MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND CASES FOR JAN. 6 PRISONERS.

THE HIGH COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER THE CRIME OF “OBSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING” INCLUDES BLOCKING CONGRESS FROM CERTIFYING THE 2020 ELECTION RESULTS.

IT’S THE SAME CHARGE BROCK CHALLENGED –

THAT RESULTED IN THE APPEALS COURT POTENTIALLY CHANGING HOW OTHER DEFENDANTS ARE SENTENCED.

THE APPEALS COURT RULING COULD IMPACT PRIOR CASES –

AND FUTURE ONES.

AS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO MAKE HIGH-PROFILE ARRESTS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE INSIDE THE CAPITOL ON JAN. 6.

785 PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SENTENCED AND 750 HAVE PLEADED GUILTY TO FEDERAL CHARGES.

THIS RULING COULD IMPACT FUTURE PLEA DEALS PROSECUTORS TRY TO MAKE TO AVOID TRIAL, AS THIS “SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT” IS NO LONGER TACKED ON TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME A DEFENDANT COULD SPEND IN PRISON.