In a bombshell development that could upend one of the most high-profile January 6 Capitol riot prosecutions, Zachary Rehl—a convicted Proud Boys member whose sentence was commuted by former President Donald Trump—has filed a pro se motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking remand to the district court for a new trial or outright dismissal of his case.
The motion, docketed as No. 23-3162 and consolidated with related appeals, cites “newly discovered evidence” of egregious prosecutorial misconduct, including the coercion of the government’s star witness, Jeremy Bertino.
Rehl’s original motion, filed today on November 26, 2025, paints a damning picture of a trial tainted by false testimony and government overreach.
It alleges that Bertino, a key witness whose testimony helped secure convictions for seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, was threatened and manipulated by FBI Special Agent Nicole Miller and prosecutors to fabricate a narrative of premeditated plotting.
“Bertino’s affidavit states that his initial proffer to the government—that the events of January 6 were organic and unorganized—was truthful, but he was threatened with 25 years in prison unless he altered his account to fit the government’s narrative of a planned conspiracy,” the motion reads.
It further claims agents “lied about Enrique Tarrio authoring a document called ‘1776 Returns’ and forced him to omit exculpatory statements.”
This isn’t just hearsay; Rehl’s filing references a sworn affidavit from Bertino himself, along with transcribed audio interviews and videos where the witness recants his trial testimony.
In one particularly stark quote from the motion: “Bertino expresses regret for his altered testimony, affirming that no prior knowledge or planning existed among the defendants.”
The document also notes that lead prosecutor Jason McCullough was “demoted or removed from his position in February 2025 amid a broader purge of January 6 prosecutors under the new administration,” suggesting official acknowledgment of ethical lapses.
But Rehl didn’t stop there. In a swift follow-up, he submitted a supplemental motion and amendment on November 27, 2025, correcting minor factual errors in the original filing and bolstering his case with direct attachments.
The supplement clarifies the timeline of Bertino’s recantations: “August 4, 2025, was the date of the first recorded video of Bertino recanting his testimony and describing the coercion.
The sworn affidavit from Bertino… is dated August 8, 2025.” Critically, this supplemental filing includes Bertino’s sworn affidavit as an attachment, making the evidence immediately accessible to the court.
The affidavit itself, now part of the public record via the supplement, is a scathing indictment of the government’s tactics.
In it, Bertino reportedly details how prosecutors were “present at every debriefing session,” pressuring him with “threats of severe charges” and coaching him to “reinterpret sarcastic social media posts as evidence of intent.”
He affirms that his original account—no organized conspiracy—was accurate, but he was forced to change it under duress.
The supplemental motion also offers “additional videos of Bertino recanting his testimony and describing the coercion in detail,” which Rehl promises to forward upon request, noting the files are “too large to upload electronically.”
These filings build on a prior motion Rehl and co-defendants Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Dominic Pezzola filed in the district court on March 6, 2025 (ECF No. 1066), which alleged “outrageous government conduct” including Brady violations, entrapment, false testimony, and jury intimidation.
That effort was denied as moot by District Judge Timothy J. Kelly due to the pending appeals, effectively kicking the can to the appellate court.
Now, with Bertino’s recantation in hand, Rehl argues the evidence meets the threshold for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1): it’s material, non-cumulative, and likely to produce an acquittal.
The constitutional implications are profound. Rehl’s motions invoke landmark Supreme Court precedents like Napue v. Illinois (1959), which prohibits the knowing use of false evidence, and Brady v. Maryland (1963), requiring disclosure of exculpatory material.
“The coercion of Bertino and the knowing use of his altered testimony violated Rehl’s Fifth Amendment due process rights to a fair trial,” the original motion states.
It accuses prosecutors of suppressing Bertino’s initial truthful proffer and forcing a “narrative of premeditation,” amounting to “outrageous government conduct warranting dismissal with prejudice” under United States v. Russell (1973).
This case stems from the chaotic events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, where Rehl and his co-defendants were convicted in a trial that ended May 4, 2023.
Sentences followed in August and September 2023, but on January 20, 2025, Trump commuted the sentences of Rehl, Biggs, Nordean, and Pezzola while fully pardoning Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.
Tarrio’s appeal was dismissed as moot, but the others press on, now armed with what Rehl calls irrefutable proof of a rigged prosecution.
Critics of the January 6 investigations have long alleged political bias and overzealous tactics by the Department of Justice. Rehl’s filings lend fresh ammunition to those claims, potentially exposing a broader pattern of misconduct in these cases.
If the appellate court grants remand—as Rehl urges under precedents like United States v. Knight (D.C. Cir. 2010)—it could trigger evidentiary hearings that unravel not just this conviction but others tied to Bertino’s testimony.
The government has yet to respond, but the stakes couldn’t be higher. As Rehl’s original motion warns, these actions “amount to outrageous government conduct shocking the conscience.”
With Bertino’s affidavit now in play, the D.C. Circuit faces a pivotal test: Will it confront allegations of prosecutorial abuse, or allow a potentially tainted verdict to stand? The American public deserves answers—and justice.
Donate to Rehl’s defense fund at givesendgo.com/zach-rehl
For the full text of Rehl’s original motion (Document #2147343), see the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit docket.
Below is the supplemental motion:
Below is the dismissal motion:
The post Explosive Revelations: Proud Boys Defendant Zachary Rehl Alleges Massive Prosecutorial Misconduct in Jan. 6 Case, Demands New Trial or Dismissal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.