Unraveling the Struggle for Fairness in January 6 Trials

In the aftermath of the widespread pardons granted by President Donald Trump on January 20 for those prosecuted in connection with the January 6, 2021 events, the loudest criticisms often echo the same sentiment:

Critics have claimed that President Trump freed many dangerous individuals who were either convicted or had pled guilty, including individuals tried by judges he appointed.

This raises a crucial question: Is it fair to label everyone involved in the judicial process in Washington, D.C. as criminals, particularly when true justice may have been unattainable in their cases?

Understanding the Trial Options for January 6 Defendants

It is true that trials occurred. Defendants faced the option of trusting a jury, likely selected from one of the most anti-Trump pools possible, or they could opt for a bench trial where a judge, some of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, would assess the evidence.

Many believed that this provided an opportunity for a fair trial, even if a jury trial could seem biased.

Throughout my lengthy career—first as a federal prosecutor for 21 years and now as a criminal defense attorney—I had never encountered a case where a defendant chose a bench trial over a jury trial. In the years I represented clients in federal court, I had not once advised anyone to pursue a bench trial.

However, when representing clients involved in the January 6 events, my guidance shifted. I recommended that all but one of my clients waive their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. I urged them to have their cases decided by a federal judge, irrespective of the president who appointed them. The sole exception involved a defendant who had pled guilty and made sworn admissions to a judge who would eventually rule on his case. After he withdrew his guilty plea, it made sense to try for a jury trial instead of relying on the judge, who already had knowledge of his admissions.

A Shift in Strategy and Perspective

Determining the total number of bench trials from January 6 cases is complex, but their occurrence was certainly rare. Many defense attorneys recognized the challenges posed by the Washington, D.C. jury pool, leading them to recommend bench trials. In five bench trials I participated in during 2024, every presiding judge instructed federal prosecutors to skip evidence related to the January 6 events.

The judges had already encountered this information multiple times and opted instead to focus solely on evidence unique to the defendant’s specific case.

Herein lies the double-edged nature of bench trials. When judges have heard about the January 6 events numerous times and desire to bypass such evidence, the benefit of an entirely neutral and unbiased decision-maker is compromised.

Judicial Comments and Perceptions

Several judges from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made pointed remarks following the pardons by President Trump. It is worth considering whether these comments project neutrality:

District Judge Beryl Howell stated, “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.”

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly commented, “The events of that day are preserved for future reflection through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent truth, irrespective of how the events of January 6 are described by the accused or their supporters.”

District Judge Tanya Chutken remarked, “No pardon can alter the tragic reality of what occurred on January 6, 2021. The dismissal of this case cannot undo the rampage that left multiple individuals dead, over 140 injured, and caused millions in damages, nor can it mend the essential breach in America’s historical tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson expressed, “Dismissals are contrary to the clear public interest in upholding the rule of law. Law enforcement is patriotic. True patriotism signifies loyalty to country and the Constitution—not loyalty to one individual. No proclamation can change the truth of what transpired on January 6, 2021. For those unwilling to risk their own popularity by confronting falsehoods, the record from this court remains available for seekers of truth.”

District Judge Paul Friedman stated, “The proclamations made are factually incorrect. The assertion of grave national injustice is unfounded. Although the court has granted the motions to dismiss, neither this dismissal nor the pardons issued by the president can erase the damage inflicted by the insurrectionists on January 6, 2021, nor can it distort the reality of that day.”

A Complex Decision-Making Process

While not all judges felt it necessary to share their opinions on Trump’s pardons, many had already condemned the events of that day in quite severe terms during various court proceedings. Judge Emmet Sullivan went as far as labeling one defendant as a terrorist and commenting on his character prior to allowing the defendant a chance to present a defense.

The perspectives of judges in the District of Columbia are clear. Faced with the option of whether to advise clients to waive their right to a jury trial or risk a decision from judges who have pronounced such strong opinions, my stance remains the same as it was three years ago. I would still recommend a bench trial, allowing the judge to make the final decision because of the evident bias within the D.C. jury pool.

When critics of Trump’s pardons overlook the fundamental unfairness present in many underlying convictions, they undermine the legitimacy of their own claims.

Ultimately, it is essential to question the integrity of the judicial process to reassure the public that justice prevails for all parties, regardless of political affiliation or the nature of the allegations.