“As the sun set on the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021, a sense of unease hung in the air. The world watched in horror as a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol, leaving a trail of destruction and chaos in its wake. But for the dozens of defendants who were scheduled to appear in court that day, the real sense of unease was yet to come. For them, January 6 marked the beginning of a new kind of struggle – one that would test the very fabric of our justice system. In the aftermath of the insurrection, scores of defendants were rushed through the criminal justice system, forced to navigate a complex and often arbitrary system of justice. Many were denied their right to a fair trial, with some being convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms without ever having the opportunity to present their case to a jury. This is the story of one such group of defendants, who were robbed of their right to a fair trial in the nation’s capital.
The Unfair Bench Trials
In the aftermath of the near blanket pardons issued by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 for all persons prosecuted in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, the loudest criticism always goes something like this: “President Trump has released hundreds of dangerous criminals from prison even though they pled guilty or were convicted by juries or judges, including some appointed by Trump himself.” But is it fair to characterize everyone caught up in the criminal justice process in the District of Columbia as “criminals” – dangerous or otherwise – if there was no fair process available to reach a judgment as to their guilt?
The Anomaly of Bench Trials
That had to present the opportunity for a fair trial even when a jury trial would never be fair, right? In my 21 years as a federal prosecutor, with dozens of criminal trials involving a myriad of federal crimes from drug trafficking to tax fraud, I never had a single case where the defendant opted for bench trial over a jury trial. In the 12 years that have followed as a criminal defense attorney — all in federal court – I had never recommended a bench trial to a client. When the judges have heard evidence about what happened that day so many times that they tell prosecutors to skip over it, you’ve lost the benefit of a completely unbiased, neutral factfinder.
The Problem with Biased Judges
But when it came to representing January 6 clients, I advised all except one to waive their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and have their cases decided by a federal judge – regardless of which president appointed them. The one exception was a case where the defendant had pled guilty and made admissions under oath to the judge who would have decided his case. After withdrawing his guilty plea, it seemed the better option to take a shot with a jury rather than try to win over the judge to whom he’d already admitted his guilt.
The Unneutral Judges’ Comments
After withdrawing his guilty plea, it seemed the better option to take a shot with a jury rather than try to win over the judge to whom he’d already admitted his guilt. I have not tried to determine the total number of bench trials in January 6 cases. The fact that there were any at all was an anomaly. But I was far from alone among defense attorneys who, knowing the Washington, D.C., jury pool, recommended bench trials for clients. And in the five bench trials I was involved in during 2024, every judge told the federal prosecutors to skip the evidence of the “events of the day.” Their reason? They’d heard it all many times before.
The Lack of Fairness
In the five bench trials I was involved in during 2024, every judge told the federal prosecutors to skip the evidence of the “events of the day.” Their reason? They’d heard it all many times before. Instead, prosecutors were told to fast forward to evidence specific to the defendant. And THAT is why the bench trials were a double-edged sword. When the judges have heard evidence about what happened that day so many times that they tell prosecutors to skip over it, you’ve lost the benefit of a completely unbiased, neutral factfinder.
The Unfair Jury Pool
This brings me to the pointed and unjudicial comments made by several of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judges in the aftermath of the sweeping pardons issued by President Trump. See if any of them sound neutral or objective: District Judge Beryl Howell: “No ‘national injustice’ occurred here, just as no outcome-determinative election fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election…. No ‘process of national reconciliation’ can begin when poor losers, whose preferred candidate loses an election, are glorified for disrupting a constitutionally mandated proceeding in Congress and doing so with impunity.”
The Judges’ Prior Knowledge
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: “What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through countless hearings, investigations, and reports. You can’t make this stuff up, or rewrite it to fit your own narrative.”
The Consequences of Unfair Trials
These comments demonstrate the clear bias exhibited by some judges in the bench trials. This lack of neutrality has severe consequences for the defendants involved, as it can lead to unfair verdicts and a lack of trust in the justice system. The implications are far-reaching, affecting not only the individuals involved but also the system as a whole.
Practical Solutions
So, what can be done to address this issue and ensure fairness in the bench trials? First and foremost, it is essential to recognize the importance of a fair and impartial justice system. This can be achieved by implementing measures to address the biases exhibited by some judges, such as providing training on impartiality and ensuring that judges are evaluated based on their performance in this area.
Alternative Options
Additionally, defendants should consider alternative options to bench trials, such as jury trials. This can provide a more fair and impartial outcome, as jurors are less likely to be influenced by the evidence they have heard before. It is crucial for defense attorneys to educate their clients on these options and the potential benefits they can provide.
Judicial Reform
Furthermore, judicial reform is necessary to address the biases exhibited by some judges. This can involve revising the process for appointing and evaluating judges, as well as providing training on impartiality. It is essential for the justice system to ensure that judges are held accountable for their actions and that they are evaluated based on their performance in this area.
Defender’s Dilemma
Finally, defense attorneys must navigate the challenges of the system to ensure that their clients receive a fair trial. This can involve identifying potential biases and taking steps to mitigate their impact, as well as advocating for their clients’ rights and interests. It is crucial for defense attorneys to prioritize their clients’ needs and to ensure that they receive a fair and impartial outcome.
Conclusion
Here is a comprehensive conclusion for the article:
In conclusion, the fate of my January 6th clients, who were subjected to unfair bench trials in DC, serves as a stark reminder of the systemic flaws that plague our justice system. Through my account, it is clear that the absence of a jury, combined with the lack of transparency and due process, resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. The consequences of these bench trials are far-reaching, as they not only compromise the integrity of our courts but also erode trust in the system among the public.
The significance of this issue cannot be overstated, as it highlights the need for reform and accountability within our judiciary. It is imperative that we address the shortcomings of our current system, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, receive a fair and impartial trial. The implications of inaction are dire, as it would perpetuate a culture of injustice and undermine the very fabric of our democracy.
As we move forward, it is crucial that we utilize this moment as an opportunity to re-examine our justice system and work towards creating a more equitable and transparent process. Only then can we ensure that the principles of fairness and justice are upheld, and that the rights of all individuals are protected. In the end, it is our collective responsibility to demand a system that is just, fair, and accountable – for the sake of our democracy, and for the sake of the very people it is meant to serve.