Background: Rioters supporting President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier at the Capitol in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021 (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File). Inset: Benjamin John Martin (DOJ).
The Trump administration is urging a federal judge to toss out a California man's conviction on firearms charges, arguing that President Donald Trump's blanket pardon for Jan. 6 defendants exonerates him.
Benjamin John Martin was found to have participated in the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and he was charged and ultimately convicted on all counts, including felony civil disorder and obstructing an official proceeding. As he was being arrested for in September 2021 at his home in Madera, California, the DOJ discovered an array of illegal firearms and ammunition, and he was tried separately and ultimately convicted in federal court in California on the gun charges.
The Department of Justice under Trump, however, wants that conviction reversed, arguing in an 18-page filing that "were it not for Martin's involvement in 'the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,' his firearms offenses would not have come to light, let alone been prosecuted."
The renewed motion to vacate comes as the latest development in a saga that began more than five years ago.
In September 2021, the FBI executed a search warrant at Martin's home in connection with the Capitol attack. Agents found eight guns, including an AR-15-style assault rifle, as well as multiple high-capacity magazines and more than 500 rounds of ammunition.
This proved to be a problem for Martin beyond his charges related to the insurrection — which were ultimately rendered irrelevant due to Trump's pardon on the first day of his second term — because he "was prohibited from possessing these items." He had a prior domestic violence conviction and ensuing restraining order "for choking his then girlfriend and dragging her back into the house after she tried to flee."
According to prosecutors at the time, not long after his arrest, "Martin was caught on a recorded jail call where he instructed his then fiancee to lie to authorities and tell them that the firearms seized from his residence belonged to her and her father and that he did not know about them. She agreed to do so."
Trump's pardon came in January 2025, and the DOJ, under new leadership, argued that Martin's firearms conviction should be overturned because the charges were only brought because of the Jan. 6-related search. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released Martin from jail, but dismissed the request to overturn the firearms conviction.
Now, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Trump administration is demanding the court give the case another look.
First, the DOJ points to Trump's pardon.
"The pardon here applies 'to convictions for offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,' the new filing reads. "That language is not limited solely to offenses that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The words 'relate[d] to' in their 'normal sense' have a 'broad common-sense meaning' that potentially reaches anything having 'a connection with' the related-to events."
"Here, the Department has determined that there is no sound reason to believe that Martin's possession of firearms at his home, while being a prohibited person, would have been discovered in a way other than as the unexpected byproduct of executing a search warrant seeking evidence related to Martin's conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6," the DOJ adds.
But even if the pardon were not considered, the firearms conviction should still be thrown out, the Trump administration argues. Not only is it in the "interests of justice," the DOJ claims, but it is the government's prerogative.
Additionally, "while this prosecution and appeal have consumed substantial resources of the United States Attorney's Office, continued prosecution of this case will potentially involve additional (yet scarce) resources," the renewed motion to vacate adds.
To this end, the DOJ points to "significant staffing shortages" and an influx of "petitions for writs of habeas corpus" in immigration-detention cases as reasons for this proclaimed scarcity.
It is unclear when the appeals court will respond.