A man convicted for his role in the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol complex sought to briefly delay proceedings in his case in light of President-elect Donald Trump’s Nov. 5 election victory.
That effort quickly fell short by Wednesday afternoon.
Christopher Carnell, 21, of Cary, North Carolina, wore a red backpack with his last name stitched on the back in white letters when he was at the national seat of government without permission that fateful day.
In late February 2023, he was indicted — along with his Raleigh-based friend David Bowman, 22 — on one felony count of obstruction of an official proceeding and misdemeanor charges including: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, entering and remaining on the floor of Congress, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.
The pair were convicted following a bench trial by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in February of this year. Sentencing was originally slated to occur in June but has consistently been pushed back. Now, Carnell seems to be angling for the court to never sentence him at all.
His reason? Trump’s oft-repeated promises to pardon numerous Jan. 6 defendants if he were to win his third presidential election contest.
But other events have intervened to make Carnell’s case ripe for just the kind of can-kicking he is now asking the judge to endorse.
In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fischer v. United States — significantly narrowing a key statute used to charge and convict numerous Jan. 6 defendants for obstructing the official duties of lawmakers certifying the election. Now, the statute only bars obstruction of an official proceeding by evidence tampering.
Days later, Carnell and Bowman filed a motion to reconsider. The defendants asked the court to overturn their guilty verdicts in light of Fischer. In August, the government responded — opposing the motion but conceding that the operative legal elements no longer supported their felony convictions under federal law.
In early October, in an exasperated order, Howell summed up the state of the case: “The peculiar situation presented is that the parties have no agreed-upon path to correct the error of relying on now-invalid elements to which the parties stipulated for the findings of guilt.”
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Just scuffed cops, still free’: Jan. 6 rioter who bragged about manhandling cops at the US Capitol may not be loose much longer
In the end, the court vacated the convictions, pointedly denied the requests to reverse the guilty verdicts, and directed the defense and the prosecution to sort out how things should move forward.
Left to argue among themselves, no resolution was reached. The government aimed to move forward with a new trial; the defendants maintained the prosecutors should quit while they’re ahead.
Then Trump won.
Wednesday morning, the defense raised their bets.
“This week’s November 8, 2024, status hearing is expected to involve discussions between the parties concerning the Government’s intent to pursue an Obstruction charge against the defendants and to set a sentencing date for the misdemeanor counts of conviction,” the latest motion reads. “After this status date was scheduled sua sponte by the Court, new developments arose that significantly impact the status of this case.”
Those “new developments,” of course, are the election — and the concomitant words of succor Trump has offered his fellow travelers.
“Throughout his campaign, President-elect Trump made multiple clemency promises to the January 6 defendants, particularly to those who were nonviolent participants,” the motion goes on. “Mr. Carnell, who was an 18 year old nonviolent entrant into the Capitol on January 6, is expecting to be relieved of the criminal prosecution that he is currently facing when the new administration takes office.”
On the day in question, the defendant rifled through papers in Ted Cruz’s desk with other rioters and spoke up in the Texas senator’s defense as another member of the pro-Trump group questioned Cruz’s behavior regarding certification of electoral votes.
Notably, Carnell did not ask for a delay all the way into the new year and the incoming second Trump administration — but for the process to be continued another five or so weeks in order to develop a more thorough defense based on the hoped-for pardons in the offing.
He also thought he was playing with something of an ace. Carnell notes that his co-defendant has just lost, or is about to lose, his own lawyer. And, their combined defenses will need some time to play catch-up and “facilitate defense coordination and the joint defense strategy moving forward” — wholly regardless of the potential pardon issue.
Soon after the request, however, Howell kept the status hearing as scheduled for both defendants — denying the pause. There was no request, and therefore no ruling, on the merits of Carnell’s argument.
The would-be incoming raft of pardons is likely to be a font of discussion during the status hearing on Friday morning.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Note: Thank you for visiting our website! We strive to keep you informed with the latest updates based on expected timelines, although please note that we are not affiliated with any official bodies. Our team is committed to ensuring accuracy and transparency in our reporting, verifying all information before publication. We aim to bring you reliable news, and if you have any questions or concerns about our content, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!