A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed David DePape's federal conviction and 30-year prison sentence on Wednesday, rejecting every argument his defense mounted on appeal. DePape, the man who broke into former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home and fractured her husband Paul Pelosi's skull with a hammer, will serve the sentence on top of the life term he already received in a separate state case.

The panel disposed of the case in a five-page memorandum, finding sufficient evidence that DePape attempted to kidnap a federal official and assaulted the family member of a federal official. Not one of his appellate claims survived.

What the Panel Found

DePape's defense challenged the conviction on multiple fronts. He argued that jury instructions failed to clearly convey the elements of each charge. He claimed the trial court's admission of bloody videos and photos carried "an extreme risk of unfair prejudice." And he contended that U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, a Joe Biden appointee, improperly resentenced him after the original sentencing was vacated.

According to Courthouse News, the panel dismantled each argument in turn. On the question of whether DePape targeted Nancy Pelosi because of her official duties, the judges were direct:

A rational trier of fact could have concluded that DePape attempted to kidnap the former speaker 'on account of the performance of [her] official duties.'

The evidence showed DePape told investigators that "something needed to be done" and that he intended to "break her kneecaps." The panel found his actions were "intended to cause interference, to retaliate, or both." When DePape arrived at the home and found the Speaker absent, he took Paul Pelosi hostage and struck him three times on the head with a hammer when police arrived.

As for the contested jury instructions, the panel found they "adequately encompass[ed DePape's] theory" and did "go to an element of [each] charge." On the graphic evidence, the panel was equally unmoved:

Because the materials were relevant to proving DePape had the requisite intent and took the requisite steps for each of his charges, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them.

Every door the defense tried to open, the court closed.

The Allocution Detour

The most unusual chapter of this case wasn't the appeal itself but the procedural error that preceded it. Judge Corley sentenced DePape to 30 years in prison on May 17, 2024, then admitted she had failed to allow him to address the court before imposing the sentence. That failure, a violation of the right to allocution, required a redo of the sentencing on May 28.

DePape's public defender, Todd Borden, told the panel in December that the error was no small matter:

The importance of the right to allocution, I don't think, is merely technical. It actually goes back to the 1600s.

He added: "It has really deep roots."

The panel addressed this in a separate nine-page opinion but ultimately found the resentencing resolved the issue. The 30-year sentence stood. A procedural stumble by a Biden-appointed judge added weeks of unnecessary litigation to a case that should have been straightforward, but it changed nothing about the outcome.

Justice, Twice Over

DePape now carries two sentences. The federal conviction brings 30 years. A separate state trial last year delivered life in prison without the possibility of parole. The man who smashed Paul Pelosi's skull is not getting out.

The panel itself was composed of U.S. Circuit Judges Patrick J. Bumatay, a Donald Trump appointee, Anthony D. Johnstone, and Ana de Alba, both Joe Biden appointees. The unanimous decision crossed the usual ideological lines that define the Ninth Circuit, which tells you something about the strength of the evidence.

What happened in the Pelosi home was a brutal, targeted act of political violence. There is no ideological home for it, no faction that should want to claim it, and no legal theory that could excuse it. The courts treated it accordingly. DePape received a full trial, a full appeal, and even a second chance to speak before his sentence was imposed. He got every procedural protection the system affords.

The system gave him due process. Then it gave him 30 years and life.