A January 6 rioter named James Little recently lost his court battle after trying to argue that a judge violated his rights by sentencing him to more prison time following an appeal. Little’s original sentence had been overturned, and he claimed the new sentence amounted to being punished twice for the same crime.
Here’s what happened: Little pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct for his role in the Capitol riot and was given a “split sentence” by Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. That meant 60 days in jail followed by three months of probation. Little didn’t agree with this and appealed, saying the law didn’t allow for a split sentence in his case. In August 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia sided with him and threw out the original sentence.
But things didn’t go as Little might have hoped. After the appeal, Judge Lamberth resentenced him to 150 days in prison, giving credit for the time he had already served. Little wasn’t happy about the longer sentence and appealed again, this time arguing it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, which protects people from being punished twice for the same crime.
The court wasn’t convinced. Judge Florence Pan, from the U.S. Circuit Court, explained that Little wasn’t being punished twice—he was being resentenced after his first sentence was invalidated. Resentencing, she said, doesn’t fall under double jeopardy rules. In fact, courts can give a longer sentence during resentencing, as long as they account for any time the defendant has already served.
Little’s lawyers argued that since he had already completed his initial jail time and was a month into his probation when the appeals court threw out the split sentence, the new prison term wasn’t fair. But the court dismissed these arguments as “unconvincing.”
Judge Lamberth didn’t hold back during the resentencing hearing. He spoke about the seriousness of what happened on January 6, 2021, when thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. The riot, fueled by false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, disrupted Congress as lawmakers were certifying Joe Biden’s victory. It forced elected officials to flee or hide for hours, put lives at risk, and temporarily halted the peaceful transfer of power.
Lamberth criticized attempts to downplay the violence, calling it dangerous and baffling. He said some people have tried to twist the truth by portraying the rioters as harmless or even victims, which he finds unacceptable. He also called out Little’s lack of remorse, saying it was part of a larger problem where people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
The judge stressed that what happened that day wasn’t just a protest—it was an attack on democracy. He described it as a mob invading and occupying the Capitol, using force to interrupt a cornerstone of the Constitution: the peaceful transfer of power. Lamberth made it clear that he won’t tolerate efforts to rewrite what happened or justify criminal behavior.
For Little, the ruling was a clear message. Despite his attempts to challenge the process, the court upheld his new sentence, standing firm on the importance of accountability for actions that threatened the country’s democratic foundations.
