Judge Warns DOJ He May Reject Government’s Effort to Toss Jan. 6 Defendant’s Gun Case

A federal judge in Baltimore is pressing the government and a defendant involved in the January 6 Capitol riot to clarify their positions regarding President Donald Trump’s blanket pardon in a gun-related case. U.S. District Judge James Kelleher Bredar, appointed by Barack Obama, has raised concerns about how both parties have approached the pardon application in this particular matter, signaling a more rigorous examination ahead.

Background on the Case

In February 2021, Elias Costianes was charged with firearms-related offenses after federal agents executed warrants in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot. At the same time, a separate case was filed against him for his participation in the riot, including filming himself inside the Capitol building. Costianes pleaded guilty to possessing firearms and ammunition as an unlawful user of a controlled substance in September 2023. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. Despite his conviction, Costianes sought to use the January 20, 2021, blanket pardon issued by Trump to overturn his conviction. This led to a complicated legal back-and-forth, with appeals, motions, and decisions being sent between various courts, including the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and the district court.

The Court’s Push for Clarity

Judge Bredar has expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the pardon issue. In his latest order, he pointed out that neither Costianes nor the Department of Justice (DOJ) had provided sufficient arguments on why Trump’s blanket pardon should apply to his specific gun case. The judge emphasized that the parties involved merely asserted the pardon’s applicability without substantial legal reasoning. He stated that this failure to provide detailed arguments was unacceptable and that a more rigorous briefing was necessary. The judge also highlighted that the 4th Circuit had directed the district court to assess the pardon’s impact on Costianes’ conviction, but the parties had not yet adequately addressed this matter. Bredar signaled that the application of the pardon to the gun case raises significant questions that must be carefully considered.

The DOJ’s Inconsistent Position

In his ruling, Judge Bredar noted that the DOJ had presented conflicting positions regarding the scope of Trump’s pardon in different cases involving January 6 defendants. In some instances, the government had argued that the pardon applied to related crimes, while in others, it had taken the position that it did not. This inconsistency has led to concerns about the DOJ’s good faith in handling the matter. The judge pointed out that misleading or inconsistent assertions could be indicative of bad faith, which might influence his decision on the government’s motion. He also warned that the court could reject the DOJ’s request under Rule 48, which governs the dismissal of criminal cases, if the government’s actions were found to be in bad faith.

Moving Forward with Legal Scrutiny

While Bredar acknowledged the government’s interpretation of the pardon, he stressed that the court could not simply act as a “rubber stamp” for the government’s dismissal request under Rule 48. The judge emphasized that the government must provide a more thorough legal analysis to justify the application of the pardon in Costianes’ case. This ruling sets the stage for a deeper and more detailed examination of whether Trump’s pardon can indeed be applied to Costianes’ conviction. As the case progresses, both the DOJ and Costianes will be required to provide more comprehensive arguments, with the judge reserving judgment on whether the pardon should override the conviction. This decision will set a significant precedent for how future cases involving January 6 defendants are handled, particularly concerning presidential pardons.