SentencingStats.com recently completed a comprehensive analysis of the sentencing outcomes for defendants involved in the January 6th incident at the U.S. Capitol. This study examines 934 defendants who were convicted and sentenced through August 12, 2024. The findings shed light on significant sentencing disparities arising from the exercise of judicial and prosecutorial discretion, highlighting critical gaps in the current legal framework.

Overview of the Analysis

All sentences in these cases were imposed by District Judges—and two Magistrates—in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The report provides a detailed comparison of the sentences handed down by these judges, categorized by the statutes of conviction. It also reports the differences between prosecutors’ recommended sentences and the actual sentences imposed by the court.

To facilitate a more granular analysis, sentences were divided into felony and misdemeanor categories. This segmentation allows for a deeper understanding of how different charges impact sentencing outcomes and reveals patterns of apparent inconsistency in both charging and sentencing decisions.

Sentencing Disparities and Discretion

The analysis serves as a significant exercise in studying sentencing disparities among defendants, stemming from both judicial and prosecutorial discretion. One of the major oversights of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA)—now officially 40 years old as of October 12, 2024—was its exclusive focus on regulating judicial sentencing discretion while ignoring prosecutorial charging discretion.  As other commentators have long observed, if one of the goals of the SRA is minimizing unwarranted sentencing disparities, it’s imperative to regulate both. 

Currently, neither judicial nor prosecutorial discretion is effectively regulated because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have become “merely advisory” following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker. Since this landmark ruling, which turns 20 on January 12, 2025, judges have increasingly discarded the guidelines, resulting in disparate and unpredictable sentencing outcomes, even among judges within the same district court as revealed in this analysis.

Implications of the Findings

The January 6th analysis reveals that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines—intended to promote sentencing uniformity, certainty, and proportionality—have become a largely meaningless and costly exercise that obscures the sentencing process. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, responsible for removing the liberty of more people than any single state (in a country that imprisons far more individuals than any other nation on earth), are failing to serve their intended purpose.

As the Sentencing Reform Act turns 40, it’s far past time to finally address the shortcomings of the current system by introducing meaningful reforms that actually further the goals of the SRA and assist judges in transparently imposing parsimonious, fair and effective sentences.