WASHINGTON – A former police sergeant, convicted for his involvement in the Capitol incident on January 6, 2021, is seeking a reduced prison sentence in light of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding obstruction of justice. This move could influence how prosecutors and judges handle cases against many defendants, including former President Donald Trump.

Thomas Robertson was handed a sentence exceeding seven years after being found guilty on multiple charges, such as obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder, entering a restricted area, and disorderly conduct.

Robertson and others contested the obstruction charge—one of the most severe, carrying a possible maximum penalty of 20 years for hindering Congress’s counting of Electoral College votes. Robertson argued that the law demanded proof of “corrupt” intentions to obstruct Congress but was unsuccessful in his appeal.

Another former officer, Joseph Fischer, contended that the obstruction statute did not pertain to him or others like Robertson, asserting that it was initially designed to prevent the destruction of documents after the Enron scandal. While both entered the Capitol, neither admitted to damaging public records.

In June, the Supreme Court supported Fischer’s claim, directing lower courts to reassess obstruction cases and whether the charges were appropriate for the destruction of records in official matters. Consequently, Fischer will not face the obstruction charge in his trial.

Robertson is scheduled for resentencing on Wednesday following his appeal for a reduced sentence based on the Fischer decision.

“This ruling highlights that although the conviction stands, the sentencing needs reevaluation under new considerations,” stated Mark Rollins, one of Robertson’s attorneys.

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Fischer raised uncertainties about how the obstruction charge will apply to numerous other defendants. According to the Justice Department, over 330 of the first 1,400 individuals charged over the January 6 events faced this charge. Additionally, two of the four federal charges against former President Trump claim he obstructed Congress as lawmakers worked to certify the Electoral College votes.

The Justice Department has clarified that no defendants have faced the obstruction charge in isolation, as they were also charged with other felonies or misdemeanors.

Here’s what we know about Robertson’s situation:

Prosecutors Request Judge to Maintain Original Sentence

Prosecutors are advocating for Robertson’s 87-month sentence to remain unchanged due to his overall behavior during the Capitol events.

Robertson traveled from Rocky Mount, Virginia alongside fellow officer Jacob Fracker. At the Capitol, he confronted law enforcement and struck at least two officers with a large wooden stick, according to prosecutors’ statements in court documents.

He later boasted on social media about entering the Capitol with Fracker and even shared photos of their actions. In a Facebook post, he said, “If you are too cowardly to risk arrest, being fired, and facing real gunfire to defend your rights, you have no valid arguments.”

After learning about his pending arrest from the FBI, Robertson destroyed both his and Fracker’s phones. Even though his release conditions prohibited him from having firearms, a search of his residence days after his arrest revealed the presence of eight guns and significant amounts of ammunition, as prosecutors reported.

A federal jury found Robertson guilty in April 2022 on all six counts against him, including obstruction, interfering with law enforcement, entering a restricted building, two counts of disorderly conduct, and tampering with evidence.

During the initial sentencing, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper remarked that Robertson perceived politics as warfare and suggested he would participate in another disturbance if called upon to do so.

Robertson argues for a reduced sentence based on the Fischer case

Robertson’s approach to contesting the obstruction law differs from Fischer’s; he claimed that it was necessary for him to act “corruptly” during the Capitol riot. He maintained that he did not act with corrupt intent since he did not gain any personal advantage from his actions on that day.

A panel of three judges from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Robertson’s claims and upheld his obstruction conviction last May. However, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson expressed in her dissent that she would have overturned Robertson’s conviction based on the Fischer ruling.

“It’s not common for a criminal appeal to provide a court with a ‘multiple choice’ of reasons to vacate a conviction,” remarked Henderson.

Robertson is now seeking a sentence reduction by referencing two significant decisions: the Supreme Court’s Fischer case and another ruling referred to as Brock from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Brock decision clarified that the counting of Electoral College votes does not equate to the “administration of justice,” which had previously influenced the federal sentencing guidelines applied to Robertson.

“The ruling by the D.C. Circuit represents a positive development for Robertson,” stated Rollins.

Numerous January 6 cases involve obstruction charges

Robertson’s case may set a precedent for how lawyers and judges will interpret the Fischer decision going forward.

As of August 6, the Justice Department reported that 133 individuals had been sentenced under the obstruction law. Out of these, over half, 76, faced convictions for additional felonies as well. Among those not charged with another felony, 40 received probation, while 17 were incarcerated.

“The government will evaluate individual cases against the guidelines set forth in the Fischer ruling, alongside any ongoing legal processes related to Fischer in the D.C. Circuit, to decide how to proceed with the charges,” stated the Justice Department.

One of the defendants impacted is Trump. A note within the Fischer ruling suggested that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan “should determine” whether Trump’s obstruction charges “can move forward considering our ruling.”

Trump’s legal team argued for the dismissal of the charges, claiming prosecutors had misapplied the statute beyond its intended meaning. However, Smith’s team countered that Trump’s charges concerning the solicitation of false elector slates align with the statute’s intent concerning the “integrity for use in official proceedings,” as the electors reportedly submitted fraudulent documents to Congress.