DC Circuit Court Overrules Condition In 1/6 Sentencing

A DC Court of Appeals has made a decision on a case regarding Texas resident Daniel Goodwyn, who pleaded guilty on January 31, 2023, on 1/6 charges.

In a little less than a couple of months after pleading guilty, Goodwyn did an interview with Tucker Carlson. The man spoke about his plight and other J6 prisoners along with how to donate to support families involved.

On June 6, 2023, Goodwyn appeared for sentencing and his Judge Reggie Walton lectured him.

Below is what the judge said during the sentencing hearing:

The defendant after he entered a plea of guilty, within several months, then appears on the Tucker Carlson show.  And, unfortunately, Mr. Carlson has been a lightning rod and he has said and done things that I think clearly have been divisive. And he, obviously, had an objective in the show that he had when the defendant appeared on that show.  And that was to give the impression that individuals who have been charged in reference to the events on January 6th of ’21 have been treated unfairly.  And I see no evidence that, in fact, was the case.

But he sought to try and minimize, not only the conduct of the defendant, but the conduct of others who have been prosecuted as a result of what took place on that day. And counsel suggests that the defendant did not have the opportunity to correct the record.  But he made no attempt to correct the record.  And when Carlson suggested that all the defendant did was go into the Capitol and walk around for less than a minute and leave, that just wasn’t correct. And that misinformation that is disseminated to the American public has contributed to the discord that now exists in our country in reference to the presidential election and what occurred on January 6th.  And there are people who are proclaiming that the individuals who have been prosecuted, who are being detained as a result of that are being held as political prisoners.  And there is just nothing that supports that proposition.

Good was sentenced to 60 days in jail, ordered to pay a $2,500 fine and $500 in restitution, and 12 months of supervised release.

But then things got interesting:

Also, I would require that he participate in mental health treatment, if that is deemed to be necessary and that he remain in that treatment until it is no longer felt to be necessary by the probation department.

Walton ordered Goodwyn to undergo mental health treatment because he exercised his 1st Amendment Right. The judge also ordered that Goodwyn’s computer devices be regularly inspected by federal probation.

And since he has used social media in order to provide what I consider to be disinformation about this situation, I would require that he permit his computer use to be subject to monitoring and inspection by the probation department to see if he is, in fact, disseminating information of the nature that relates to the events that resulted in what occurred on January 6th of 2021.

Upon release from prison Goodwyn petitioned the judge for his passport, phone, and computer which was seized when he was arrested. Walton agreed to return the passport but the FBI was allowed to keep his electronics.

Later, Goodwyn also appealed the probation condition his phone and computer be monitored by probation services.

Below is the appeals court ruling:

Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief; and the motion to remand and the opposition thereto, which includes a request to vacate the special condition of supervised release subjecting appellant to computer monitoring and searches, it is

ORDERED that the computer-monitoring condition be vacated and the case be remanded for further proceedings.  The district court plainly erred in imposing the computer-monitoring condition without considering whether it was “reasonably related” to the relevant sentencing factors and involved “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to achieve the purposes behind sentencing.  18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); see United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233, 242–46 (D.C. Cir. 2010).  If the district court decides on remand to impose a new computer-monitoring condition, “it should explain its reasoning,” “develop the record in support of its decision,” and ensure that the condition accords with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and constitutional protections.  Burroughs, 613 F.3d at 246

This is now another ruling made by the DC appeals court that has been in favor of sentences imposed J6 defendants.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here