Oops: Pelosi Attacker Resentenced Because Judge Forgot to Let Him Speak 

Featureflash Photo Agency / shutterstock.com
Featureflash Photo Agency / shutterstock.com

In October 2022, David DePape attacked Paul Pelosi, the then-82-year-old husband of Nancy Pelosi, the 52nd Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. DePape broke into the couple’s Pacific Heights, San Francisco residence and bludgeoned Paul Pelosi with a hammer, leaving him seriously injured. The attack was captured on police body camera video just days before the 2022 midterm elections. Paul Pelosi suffered two head wounds, including a skull fracture that required plates and screws for repair. His right arm and hand were also injured.  

In November, David DePape, 44, was convicted of attempting to kidnap a federal official and assaulting an immediate family member of a federal official. In May, he was sentenced to 30 years in prison for assault and twenty for attempted kidnapping, with the sentences for both charges running concurrently. 

However, a court error will force the judge to reopen DePage’s case, potentially leading to a reconsideration of the sentencing.  

The court forgot to allow DePape to defend himself in court. 

The case was wrapped up in a neat little package, with prosecutors and the judge feeling proud of themselves for rendering a harsh sentence to the man who broke into Mama Pelosi’s house. 

Calling it a “completely unprecedented case,” Judge Jacqueline Scott handed the mentally unstable DePape three decades behind bars and most likely felt proud of her fifteen minutes of fame. 

But those fifteen minutes of fame have turned to shame.  

Recently filed court documents note that defendants are allowed by federal rule to speak on their behalf. Defendants can “present information to mitigate the sentence” during these remarks. The documents reveal that no one within the courtroom allowed DePape to speak, and it was the judge’s responsibility to do so. 

At his trial, DePape testified that he broke into the Pelosis’ San Francisco home around 2 am on October 28, 2022, intending to take the then-speaker hostage and “break her kneecaps” if she lied to him. He also admitted to striking 82-year-old Paul Pelosi with a hammer when police arrived at the scene, acknowledging that his plan to stop what he perceived as government corruption was falling apart. 

By anyone’s standards, DePape was a man suffering from delusions and other potential mental illnesses. Serving fifty years behind bars seems a bit of a stretch, regardless. But Scott was happy to deliver the maximum, so eager to do so, in fact, that she neglected an essential part of any trial – giving the defendant a chance to plead for clemency. 

However, as a Biden-appointed judge, Scott did what her boss expected her to do. There is no room for fairness or impartiality in a case that impacts a conservative defendant. 

While the error may have been an oversight from an overzealous judge seeking to deliver a significant blow to an enemy of the Democrat party, it’s a symptom of a larger warfare scheme being waged against all conservatives in Biden’s America. 

In Judge Juan Merchan’s New York courtroom, fairness and impartiality are notably absent. From selecting 85% of the jury pool from Biden supporters to ensuring that several of Trump’s witnesses are not permitted to speak, apparent conflicts of interest, and a refusal of the judge to recuse himself, the court case has devolved into a cautionary tale about trials under a dictatorial style of government. 

For Merchan, anything short of a conviction will spell the end of his judicial career. It will also effectively end his daughter Loren Merchan’s career as well. Loren, who formerly served as the director of digital persuasion for Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign, is now the President and Partner at Authentic Campaigns. This organization aims to promote progressive ideology.  

Merchan makes no secret of his “get Trump at any cost” courtroom agenda. While the left applauds him for his unfair, and at times unconstitutional, treatment of Trump in his courtroom, many experts are cautioning that the judge is doing himself no favors and paving the way for any conviction to be overturned on appeal. 

Somehow, law and order relating to conservatives, even arguably mentally unstable ones such as DePape, has become less about justice and more about making a political stand. Scott’s overzealous participation in DePape’s conviction led to her overlooking a critical part of any trial – the right of a defendant to speak on his behalf. It’s unlikely to change her sentence, but it’s still important to give at least the appearance of impartiality in predetermined, high-profile cases like these.