The Trump administration is asking a federal judge in California to erase a separate firearms conviction against Benjamin John Martin, a Jan. 6 defendant whose weapons case began after FBI agents searched his Madera home during the Capitol attack investigation.
The renewed request, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues that Martin’s gun conviction should fall under President Donald Trump’s broad Jan. 6 pardon because the firearms were found only through the Capitol-related probe.
DOJ seeks relief beyond Capitol charges
Martin was convicted in Washington, D.C., for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. He was later convicted in Fresno, California, in a separate federal case involving illegal firearm and ammunition possession.
The new Justice Department position asks the court to treat the California gun case as connected to Jan. 6. The administration argues that Martin’s firearms offenses would not have been discovered without the investigation into his conduct at the Capitol.
The filing also argues that continued litigation would require more government resources. It cites staffing limits and competing demands on federal prosecutors.
The request follows earlier proceedings in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Martin was released from custody, but the appeals court did not wipe away the firearms conviction.
FBI search led to gun case
The firearms case began in September 2021, when agents searched Martin’s Madera home while executing warrants tied to the Capitol breach investigation.
During that search, agents found several firearms. Later trial records described eight guns, including an AR-15-style rifle, multiple high-capacity magazines, and more than 500 rounds of ammunition.
Federal prosecutors said Martin could not legally possess those weapons because of a prior domestic violence conviction and a restraining order. The domestic violence case involved choking his then-girlfriend and dragging her back inside after she tried to leave.
That background makes the case legally separate from the Capitol riot. It also makes the DOJ’s current position significant because the administration is asking a court to extend Jan. 6 clemency to a conviction tied to federal gun restrictions.
The Fresno jury convicted Martin.
Martin’s firearms case went to trial in Fresno in September 2024. He was convicted after a one-day trial of illegally possessing firearms and ammunition.
During the case, prosecutors said Martin tried to shift blame for the weapons. They said he told his then-fiancée during a recorded jail call to tell authorities the guns belonged to her and her father.
The government said the call supported a witness-tampering enhancement at sentencing. Martin’s defense position in the current dispute focuses not on the original trial evidence, but on the reach of Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon.
The California conviction came three months after Martin was convicted in the Capitol breach case. In the Jan. 6 trial, evidence showed he held a Capitol door open while officers tried to close it.
The sentence came before the pardon.
In November 2024, Martin was sentenced to thirty-eight months in prison for illegally possessing firearms and ammunition.
That sentence was separate from his Jan. 6 case. It was imposed in federal court in Fresno and centered on weapons found at his California residence.
Trump issued his Jan. 6 clemency order on Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term. The order granted relief to people convicted of offenses related to events at or near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The proclamation said the pardon covered Capitol offenses and directed the attorney general to pursue dismissal of pending indictments connected to that conduct.
The fight turns on the wording of the pardon.
The dispute centers on the phrase “related to.” The Justice Department now argues that the phrase should be read broadly enough to cover Martin’s gun conviction.
Under that theory, the key connection is not where the firearms were found or when the illegal possession happened. The key connection is how agents discovered the evidence.
The administration’s argument is that the firearms case was an unexpected product of a Jan. 6 search warrant. Without the Capitol investigation, the DOJ says, the weapons case would not have come to light.
A narrower reading would treat the gun case as separate. Under that view, Trump’s pardon would cover Martin’s Capitol-related convictions, but not unrelated conduct discovered at his California home.
The court faces an unusual request.
The motion places the court in an unusual position because Martin was already convicted and sentenced before the DOJ shifted its position.
Federal prosecutors have wide discretion when deciding whether to bring charges. But after a jury conviction and sentence, courts usually give more weight to finality, public safety, and the integrity of the judicial process.
The administration also argues that vacating the conviction would serve the interests of justice. That gives the judge more than one issue to resolve: the scope of the pardon and the government’s authority to seek relief after conviction.
The firearms conviction also touches domestic violence-related gun restrictions. Federal law bars some people with qualifying domestic violence convictions or restraining orders from possessing firearms.
Other Jan. 6 defendants may watch the ruling.
Martin’s case could affect other Jan. 6 defendants whose separate criminal cases grew out of Capitol-related searches.
If the court accepts the DOJ’s broader reading, defendants in other cases may argue that separate convictions should also be vacated when the evidence was found through Jan. 6 investigations.
If the court rejects the argument, the decision would support a tighter boundary around the pardon. That would mean Jan. 6 clemency covers Capitol-related offenses, not every later or separate crime discovered during an investigation.
The judge has not issued a final ruling on the renewed request. Martin’s firearms conviction remains in dispute while the California court weighs the Trump administration’s motion.
