File photo Former Columbus resident Jon Schaffer is scheduled to be sentenced next month after pleading guilty to federal crimes over for his involvement in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has set a deadline for prosecutors and defense attorneys to make their case for what sentence should be handed down to a former Columbus resident who pleaded guilty to storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta has set an Oct. 14 deadline for the parties to file sentencing memoranda in the criminal case against former Columbus resident and heavy metal musician Jon Schaffer, who pleaded guilty in April 2021 to obstructing an official proceeding and entering and remaining in a restricted building or ground with a deadly or dangerous weapon, according to filings in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
In sentencing memoranda, defense attorneys often try to convince the judge that the minimum possible sentence is warranted. In this case, it would likely include highlighting that Schaffer cooperated with federal authorities in other investigations into the U.S. Capitol attack.
Prosecutors, for their part, typically will request a harsher sentence, though they will likely have to address a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits the scope of one of the charges to which Schaffer pleaded guilty.
Schaffer is currently scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 25.
The order from Mehta comes just days after he postponed Schaffer’s sentencing hearing for the fifth time this year, as prosecutors continue to sort out how the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on an obstruction charge impacts the case.
Since Schaffer was initially scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 20, his sentencing hearing has been delayed five times, with dates being scheduled in April, July, August, September and now late October.
“The United States seeks a brief continuance to assess the impact of the (U.S. Supreme Court) decision,” prosecutors stated in their most request to delay sentencing. “Such a continuance would not prejudice the defendant or the Court; to the contrary, it would help to ensure a uniform and consistent approach before each judge of the District and Circuit.”
The justices ruled 6-3 in June that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents, The Associated Press reported.
In addition to the obstruction charge, Schaffer also pleaded guilty to one count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or ground with a deadly or dangerous weapon.
It is unclear if or how the high court’s ruling will impact the prosecution of Schaffer. Court filings do not make any mention of Schaffer trying to tamper with or destroy documents during the Jan. 6 attack.
Schaffer, who is a former member of the heavy metal band Iced Earth, was photographed inside the Capitol wearing a tactical vest and hat that said, “Oath Keepers Lifetime Member,” with bear spray in his hand, according to court filings.
As part of his guilty plea, Schaffer acknowledged that he is “a founding, lifetime member of the Oath Keepers” and believes that “the federal government has been ‘co-opted’ by a cabal of elites actively trying to strip American citizens of their rights.”
The Oath Keepers is a militia group that recruits current and former military, police and first responders.
The case that the Supreme Court heard involves Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, who is facing a seven-count indictment for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, including the obstruction charge, and two other defendants, according to wire reports. The Supreme Court returned the Fischer’s case to a lower court to determine if he can be charged with obstruction.
Schaffer’s attorneys, for their part, have argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Fischer case “directly relates to and impacts the validity” of Schaffer’s plea and conviction and could factor into what his ultimate sentence would be.
“If Mr. Schaffer is sentenced to a term of incarceration (for the obstruction charge) … and begins serving his sentence, he will be irreparably harmed as he would lose his gainful employment, uproot his life and serve time for a felony that may be invalidated by the Fischer outcome,” one of Schaffer’s attorneys said in court filings.
Federal authorities have argued in court filings that “even if the Supreme Court were to decide Fischer adversely to the government, it is not clear that the court’s interpretation of (the obstruction charge) would necessarily invalidate Schaffer’s conviction in this case,” federal prosecutors said in court filings.
“And even if it did, the appropriate venue for challenging such a sentence would be a post-sentencing appeal, and not a motion to set aside the verdict,” according to court filings. “…Moreover, obstruction of Congress was not Defendant Schaffer’s only conviction. He will also be sentenced for unlawfully entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon.”
