DOJ’s Reply Motion for Carl Nichols’ Reconsideration on 1512: Other Judge Other Judges Other Judges
I’ve written two posts on former Clarence Thomas clerk Carl Nichols’ outlier ruling rejecting DOJ’s use of 18 USC 1512(c)(2) to January 6. (one, two)
Yesterday, they submitted their reply motion. It reads like this:
Reconsideration of the substantive ruling in Miller is appropriate because that ruling is inconsistent with decisions from every other judge on this Court to have considered the issue. That inconsistency means proving a violation of Section 1512(c)(2) requires additional facts in this case (and other Section 1512(c)(2) cases in front of this Court) but not in any case before any of the other judges of this Court. Moreover, with one exception, the Court’s ruling in Miller did not address the opinions from other judges of this Court, some of whom have explicitly disagreed with this Court after Miller issued.
As noted in the government’s reconsideration motion, every other judge of this Court to consider this issue has concluded that Section 1512(c)(2) “prohibits obstruction by means other than document destruction.” United States v. Sandlin, No. 21-cr-88, 2021 WL 5865006, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2021) (Friedrich, J.); see ECF 75 at 5-6 (citing cases). At the time the reconsideration motion was filed, one judge had disagreed with Miller in a footnote, United States v. Puma, 21-cr-454, 2022 WL 823079, at *12 n.4 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2022) (Friedman, J.), and another judge indicated her disagreement with Miller orally when delivering a “brief ruling” denying a defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, see United States v. Reffitt, 21-cr-32, Trial Tr. 1498, 1502-05 (Mar. 8, 2022) (Friedrich, J.) (attached as Exhibit A to the reconsideration motion). Since the reconsideration motion was filed, judges have continued to reject Miller’s reasoning. See, e.g., United States v. Hughes, No. 21-cr-106, Minute Order denying motion to dismiss count charging Section 1512 (D.D.C. May 9, 2022) (Kelly, J.) (rejecting the “narrow reading” of Section 1512(c)(2) and agreeing with an opinion that “directly responded to and rejected the logic employed in Miller”); United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, No. 21-cr-37, Transcript of motion to dismiss hearing at 4-8 (D.D.C. May 6, 2022) (McFadden, J.)(attached as Exhibit D);United States v. Reffitt, No. 21-cr-32, 2022 WL 1404247, at *7-*10 (D.D.C. May 4, 2022) (Friedrich, J.); United States v. McHugh, No. 21-cr-453, 2022 WL 1302880, at *2-*13 (D.D.C. May 2, 2022) (Bates, J). Although none of those rulings represents “controlling law,” McAllister v. District of Columbia, 53 F. Supp. 3d 55, 59 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is surely “significant” that this Court stands as the sole outlier among all the judges on this Court to have ruled on the issue both before and after Miller issued.
Two related factors militate in favor of reconsideration of the Court’s substantive conclusion about the scope of Section 1512(c)(2). First, the Court in Miller addressed only one of the contrary opinions from judges on this Court. See Mem. Op. 16, 18 n.8, 22, 26 (citing United States v. Montgomery, No. 21-cr-46, 2021 WL 6134591(D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2021)). Reconsideration would permit the Court the opportunity to consider in full the “persuasive authority” issued by other judges of this Court. See United States v. Drummond, 98 F. Supp. 2d 44, 50 n.5 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that within-Circuit district court cases are not binding but “[o]f course” are “persuasive authority”). Second, reconsideration resulting in an interpretation consistent with other judges of this Court would ensure that all defendants charged under Section 1512(c)(2) are treated alike until the court of appeals has an opportunity on post-conviction review to consider the merits of their challenges to the statute’s scope.
Second, Miller argues (Opp. 10-18) that the government “misunderstands” (id. at 10) this Court’s textual analysis of Section 1512(c)(2). But the issue is not one of misapprehension; rather, the government (and every other judge on this Court to have considered the issue) understands but disagrees with the Court’s (and Miller’s) interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s reach. [my emphasis]
It uses Garret Miller’s response to implicitly attack Carl Nichols and emphasize the degree to which even Nichols’ Trump appointed colleagues — first Dabney Friedrich, then Tim Kelly, and finally, the judge most likely to agree with Nichols, Trevor McFadden — have disagreed with Nichols’ thinking.
Guy Reffitt’s prosecution is now ripe for appeal, if he still plans on doing that. Or Nichols will choose to adhere to his outlier opinion.
Here’s the current tally on obstruction opinions, with McFadden added.
- Dabney Friedrich, December 10, 2021, Sandlin*
- Amit Mehta, December 20, 2021, Caldwell*
- James Boasberg, December 21, 2021, Mostofsky
- Tim Kelly, December 28, 2021, Nordean; May 9, 2022, Hughes (by minute order), rejecting Miller
- Randolph Moss, December 28, 2021, Montgomery
- Beryl Howell, January 21, 2022, DeCarlo
- John Bates, February 1, 2022, McHugh; May 2, 2022 [on reconsideration]
- Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, February 9, 2022, Grider
- Richard Leon (by minute order), February 24, 2022, Costianes; May 26, 2022, Fitzsimons (post-Miller)
- Christopher Cooper, February 25, 2022, Robertson
- Rudolph Contreras, announced March 8, released March 14, Andries
- Paul Friedman, March 19, Puma
- Thomas Hogan, March 30, Sargent (opinion forthcoming)
- Trevor McFadden, May 6, Hale-Cusanelli
- Royce Lamberth, May 25, Bingert
Shorter DOJ: Dude, you’re embarassing yourself.
I wish this site had a “like” emoji.
Nichols — waah, this is the worst example of left wing PC gone amok since Stalin! Waaah!
Typical federal court beat reporter — new signs liberal critics of conservative thinkers have gone too far as they are accused of Stalinist tactics…. 64 paragraphs later…. on balance, this may be overstating the liberal position somewhat.
OK Warriors are in. Held up my end of the deal. What do your Suns have in their game 7?
I honestly do not know. Is still best series though.
Looking forward to it if PHX gets it done tomorrow. The best part is that the Warriors are pretty healthy so it’s not likely to have an asterisk for ‘so and so being hurt’. We’d like GP2 back, though.
Also OT, how about all of the NL West being at .500 or above? Or, whether Boston is in mourning since the Red Sox are in last place, 1.5 games behind Baltimore?
Also OT, whether Arsenal gets to celebrate St Totteringham’s Day this season, after blowing a golden opportunity this week in the North London Derby (the Gunners lost 3-0). Good day for some trash talk, I think.
I have no current confidence in the Suns. But King Warriors, Punaise, will not even come over.
ooooh, thread-shaming! :~)
(You say “come on over” as if I strolling over to borrow a cup of sugar or something).
Am not sure the Suns can keep up their end of the bargain. But, yes, stroll on over if they do.
Dude. It wasn’t supposed to end this way…
Nope. Son of a bitch. Meet your biggest Dubs fan friend. Good grief.
Yet again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxipVM_0CBA
I feel your pain. Didn’t watch any of that series, but yikes what a collapse. Welcome aboard the good ship Dub.
Sox Nation has been in mourning since this last lifeless offseason. Now we’re steeling ourselves for the growing inevitability of trading away Bogaerts, the Face — no, the Heart — of the Franchise — to make way for the new Face, some utility player named Financial Flexibility.
Four days after I received my Sullivan Tire magnetic Sox calendar, my brother called to tell me it was over.
OT, the national collegiate sevens tournament is this weekend, which explains why Cal isn’t there after losing to St Mary’s in the 15s semis. It’s finals week at Cal and Berkeley is not a place to take lightly for finals regardless of the class. 3 hours of fun fun fun. No time to practice either, so while Cal was unbeaten in their sevens slate (13-0) Arizona and UCLA will go to the tourney in Atlanta from the PAC. Cal vs. AZ: 19-7, 19-12, 25-7; vs. UCLA: 19-12, 27-21, 10-0. I’d bet on Lindenwood, St Mary’s or Army as my top 3 but sevens is usually chock-full of upsets.
Academics is a point of pride for Cal Rugby and Jack in particular, there are 23 that made academic honors this year.
Wasn’t sure the proud rather arrogant Dubs could recover from the Whoop that Trick drubbing in Memphis. Then Game 6 Klay got his groove on.