When rumors swirled that a J6 defendant would file an appeal based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the St. Louis attorney who was the subject of that allegation was unfazed.
“Having practiced in federal court for just shy of 40 years, I can tell you that you it's the cost of doing business because people end up wanting to try cases, you try them, they get convicted, and the only basis for an appeal is to assert ineffective assistance of counsel,” said Albert Watkins, senior counsel with Kodner Watkins law firm.
Watkins is a founding member of the board of directors of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, which owns the St. Louis Record. He also represented the highest profile January 6th defendant, Jacob ‘QAnon Shaman’ Chansley who was convicted and sentenced to four years of incarceration for his role in the Trump rally at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which has been characterized by Democrats as an insurrection.
Watkins
“Jacob is to January 6th what the swoosh is to Nike,” Watkins said in an interview. “The judge said if he hadn't copped a plea, he would have given him 20 years if he’d been found guilty by a jury.”
To minimize Chansley’s sentence, Watkins enlisted a mental health defense.
"The military records show Jacob had been diagnosed by the government 15 years earlier with a significant mental health disability and he wasn't told about that diagnosis," Watkins said. "He was simply told he was fit for duty. I can guarantee you that if he'd gotten help, he would not have been at the Capitol on January 6th."
Watkins also represented four other J6 defendants until it was reported that Chansley’s new attorney, John Pierce, was considering filing an appeal based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
“The U.S. Attorney’s office has a separate division that basically defends claims that are brought for ineffective assistance of counsel, and the attorney has a duty to collaboratively work with the government in connection with that motion, and in fact becomes an adversary of their own client,” Watkins told the St. Louis Record.
As previously reported in Legal Newsline, if an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel was filed, the attorneys representing Watkins against Chansley would have been the Office of the US Attorney.
“The appearance of a conflict existed and I had a duty to tell my other clients,” Watkins said. “They were very grateful that I told them and have since gotten other counsel. None of them have pled, and all of them are still involved in their cases that are pending.”
Ultimately, Chansley did not file an appeal citing ineffective assistance of counsel and Watkins did not have to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s office.
"It's a far more formal proceeding than one might be used to seeing in state court," he added. "There are all these safeguards in place. It's really a remarkable forum where the rules exist for a reason."