TOP STORY EDITOR'S PICK

Ex-Rocky Mount police officer convicted for part in Capitol riots loses appeal

Laurence Hammack 16 hrs ago

Joining a mob that stormed the U.S Capitol over claims of a stolen election meets the legal definition of corruption, a federal appeals court found Friday in upholding the conviction of a former Rocky Mount police sergeant. ... Thomas “T.J.” Robertson had argued there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find that that he corruptly obstructed the certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election.

In his appeal, Robertson asserted that his actions – fueled by a sincere belief in former President Donald Trump’s false claims that his loss was the result of election fraud – did not rise to the level of a charge used against him in the Jan. 6, 2021, riots. ... In rejecting that argument, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted that Robertson was armed with a heavy stick when he confronted fellow police officers who were trying to hold the mob at bay. ... “Using force to obstruct, influence or impede a congressional proceeding is plainly wrong and therefore corrupt,” two of the three judges wrote in an opinion. “Thus, this case does not present a close question of culpability.”

But in a sharp dissent, a third judge said the majority’s broad interpretation of the law gives it “an eye-popping sweep” that has been used to wrongly convict Robertson and others. ... The 45-page opinion by Judge Florence Pan, followed by a 34-page dissent from Judge Karen Henderson, delved deeply into the meaning of corruption when applied to the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, in this case the certification of a presidential election.

Pan and Judge Cornelia Pillard held that the jury needed to look no further than Robertson’s unlawful actions to find that he acted corruptly. ... The Army veteran and long-time police officer had argued that the term should be defined more narrowly: as a dishonest act done with the expectation of a benefit to the defendant or another person. ... Because the law is unconstitutionally vague as to what corruption means, Robertson argued that his conviction should be overturned. ... Henderson agreed. “Acquittal is thus required if, as I view the evidence, Robertson merely intended to protest the outcome of the election or his (perceived) disenfranchisement or to make some other political point,” she wrote.

{snip}

Laurence Hammack (540) 981-3239
laurence.hammack@roanoke.com