- 1512 obstruction charge applied to 300+ Capitol riot defendants before Supreme Court narrowed its scope
- 15 federal judges upheld felony charges for violent Jan. 6 participants
- Investigation expands to include media leaks and internal DOJ decision-making
The Justice Department's handling of January 6 prosecutions faces renewed scrutiny under Interim US Attorney Ed Martin, who recently launched what he calls the 1512 Project.This initiative examines the controversial application of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) – a felony obstruction statute originally designed for evidence tampering – to Capitol riot cases. Legal analysts note the charge became a cornerstone prosecution strategy until the Supreme Court's June 2024 Fischer v. United States decision limited its applicability.
Martin's comparison of the obstruction charges to Franklin Roosevelt's 1942 Executive Order 9066, which authorized Japanese American internment, has drawn bipartisan criticism. Former U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin, who oversaw initial Jan. 6 prosecutions, called the analogy historically illiteratein a Washington Post op-ed. However, court records show 94% of convicted rioters received plea deals avoiding 1512 charges, suggesting strategic prosecutorial restraint.
The expanded investigation now includes:
- Review of internal communications about charge approvals
- Interviews with 27 defense attorneys regarding plea negotiations
- Analysis of media leaks during the Biden administration's first year
Legal experts warn this probe could impact 142 pending cases in DC District Court. A recent Georgetown University study found that Jan. 6 defendants received sentences 34% longer than similar trespassing charges elsewhere – a disparity Martin claims demonstrates political bias. Critics counter that the Capitol breach's unique threat to democratic processes justifies enhanced penalties.
Regional comparisons reveal striking contrasts. While Michigan's 2020 anti-lockdown protesters faced misdemeanor charges for occupying the state capitol, Jan. 6 defendants with comparable actions received felony designations. Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade notes: The key distinction remains the constitutional significance of certifying electoral votes versus general civil disobedience.
With Martin's Senate confirmation hearings approaching, the investigation has become a political lightning rod. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) praised the review as long-overdue accountability,while Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) accused Martin of weaponizing the DOJ against career prosecutors.The outcome could set precedents for handling election-related unrest in 2024 and beyond.