Background: Supporters of President Donald Trump clash with police as they attempt to breach a barrier at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File). Inset: Benjamin John Martin (DOJ).
The Trump administration is asking a federal judge to set aside a California man’s firearms conviction, contending that President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardon for Jan. 6 defendants clears him of the related legal consequences.
Benjamin John Martin was determined to have taken part in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol and was later charged and convicted on every count he faced, including felony civil disorder and obstruction of an official proceeding. When authorities arrested him in September 2021 at his home in Madera, California, Justice Department officials uncovered a cache of illegal guns and ammunition. Those discoveries led to a separate federal prosecution in California, where Martin was ultimately convicted on the weapons charges.
But the Justice Department under Trump is now seeking to undo that conviction, asserting 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 bid to vacate the conviction marks the latest turn in a legal fight that traces back more than five years.
In September 2021, FBI agents carried out a search warrant at Martin’s residence as part of the investigation into the Capitol attack. During the search, they recovered eight firearms, among them an AR-15-style assault rifle, along with several high-capacity magazines and more than 500 rounds of ammunition.
Those findings created legal jeopardy for Martin separate from the Jan. 6-related charges — charges later wiped away by Trump’s pardon issued on the first day of his second term — because Martin “was prohibited from possessing these items.” Prosecutors cited a prior domestic violence conviction and a resulting restraining order tied to allegations that he had choked his then-girlfriend and dragged her back into the home after she attempted to escape.
Prosecutors said at the time that shortly 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.
