January 6–Related Cases
The overwhelming majority of January 6 defendants have now had their federal cases dismissed or pardoned. But a small category of individuals remains in legal limbo — not because they took part in the events at the Capitol, but because they were prosecuted for secondary or derivative charges that only existed because of January 6 investigations.
Across dozens of cases, courts and prosecutors ultimately dismissed these “stemming charges,” acknowledging that they arose solely from J6 raids, searches, or politically charged investigations. Yet one case stands out for its inconsistency: MPD Lt. Shane Lamond, who never went to the Capitol, never participated in the breach, and never engaged in violence — yet is serving a federal prison sentence based entirely on communications with a man who has since been pardoned.
This page explains that discrepancy and reviews the major case patterns that form the basis of the argument for Lamond’s pardon.
1. The Core Argument: Why Lt. Shane Lamond’s Case Is Inconsistent
According to the compiled court records and case histories, if Enrique Tarrio’s prosecution was illegitimate or politically driven, then punishing Shane Lamond solely for communicating with Tarrio makes little sense. Lamond’s actions did not involve violence, planning, or participation in the January 6 riot. His prosecution rested entirely on information-sharing and personal communication with Tarrio — an individual who has since been pardoned.
If the government now recognizes that Tarrio should not have been prosecuted, then punishing Lamond for interacting with him is contradictory and unjust.
Lamond is currently serving time in federal prison, making him one of the few remaining January 6–related defendants without relief despite having no direct involvement in the riot.
2. What Happened in the Shane Lamond Case
Lamond, a 20-year veteran of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and an intelligence supervisor, had been in contact with Tarrio since 2019. Prosecutors accused him of sharing non-public information about investigations — but never alleged that Lamond took part in the riot, helped plan it, or committed any violent act.
He was convicted of:
One count of obstruction
Three counts of making false statements
He received 18 months in federal prison. The prosecution asked for 48 months; even the judge acknowledged the case presented “unique circumstances.”
The sole basis for the charges was Lamond’s communication with Tarrio — communications that are now logically void if Tarrio’s prosecution is void.
3. Pattern Across January 6 Cases: “Stemming Charges” Were Widely Dismissed
Dozens of J6 defendants were raided, and agents discovered unrelated firearms, drugs, or prohibited items. These secondary cases are commonly referred to as “fruit of the poisonous tree” — charges that were only uncovered because of the initial January 6 investigation.
In virtually all federal examples, these secondary charges were eventually:
dismissed,
vacated,
overturned on appeal, or
included in expanded interpretations of Trump’s pardons.
Examples include:
Garrett Miller (TX)
A firearms case uncovered during his J6 arrest led to federal weapons charges; his J6 case was pardoned. The secondary case was one of the rare convictions that survived — but it remains heavily litigated.
Guy Reffitt (TX)
His secondary firearms case was dismissed entirely.
Elias Costianes (MD)
Drug and gun charges discovered during a J6 raid were dismissed in 2025 after DOJ expansion of pardon scope.
Dan Wilson (KY)
A felon-in-possession case discovered during a J6 search was ultimately wiped out; he received a second targeted pardon.
4. Additional Cases Show the Same Consistent Pattern
A second batch of case summaries follows the same trajectory: individuals received federal J6 charges, were later searched or raided, and ended up with unrelated firearms or drug charges that courts widely considered separate and not covered by the J6 pardons.
These include:
Benjamin Martin (CA)
His separate felon-in-possession case continues but is not tied to the J6 pardon.
Chance Uptmore (TX)
His drug/firearms case continues; courts have ruled the pardon does not cover it.
Samuel Fisher (NY)
State weapons charges were unaffected by federal pardons; case completed.
Hatchet Speed (VA)
Federal silencer case remained intact; unrelated to the J6 pardon.
5. Cases Where Courts Vacated Even Serious “Stemming Charges”
A third group of cases shows how far courts have gone when ruling that J6 searches created derivative prosecutions:
Peter Krill (NJ)
A federal ammunition charge was effectively nullified after his J6 pardon; he was released early.
Daniel Ball (FL)
A post-J6 felon-in-possession charge was dismissed entirely.
Jeremy Brown (FL)
Weapons and classified-document charges were vacated because they originated from the J6 search.
Taylor Taranto (WA)
J6 charges were pardoned, but separate weapons/hoax charges remained.
6. Why Lamond’s Case Is Different — and Why It Stands Out
Across nearly all cases, the government either:
dropped the stemming charges,
applied the pardon broadly,
or courts overturned convictions tied to J6 investigations.
But Lamond is the anomaly:
His conduct was not violent.
He never entered or approached the Capitol.
His charges were entirely derivative — rooted in communications with Tarrio.
The man he was prosecuted over has now been pardoned.
Other “stemming” charges across the J6 landscape have been vacated or dismissed.
This creates the strongest remaining inconsistency in the entire January 6 legal landscape.
7. Conclusion: Logical and Moral Basis for Clemency
The documented pattern is clear:
Thousands of January 6 federal charges have been pardoned or dismissed.
Dozens of unrelated “stemming” cases have also been dismissed or vacated.
Even serious weapons cases tied only to J6 arrests have been overturned.
Lamond’s prosecution stands alone as a derivative case with no relief.
If the underlying Tarrio prosecution is nullified, then the prosecution of Shane Lamond — based entirely on that relationship — is inconsistent, disproportionate, and unjust.
He is one of the last individuals still incarcerated for a case that exists only because of January 6.