Return home

March trial date for New Hartford man charged in Jan. 6 attack

Sean I. Mills
Staff writer
email / twitter
Posted 12/23/22

A tentative trial date has been set for March 30 for the New Hartford man charged with participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot and attack on the U.S. Capitol.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

March trial date for New Hartford man charged in Jan. 6 attack


NEW HARTFORD — A tentative trial date has been set for March 30 for the New Hartford man charged with participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot and attack on the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C., according to federal court officials.

Before the trial, Eric Bochene will undergo a mental health evaluation after filing court motions that the prosecution called “frivolous and unintelligible.”

Bochene, of Pinecrest Road, New Hartford, is currently representing himself on two counts each of knowingly entering and remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

A virtual court hearing was held on Wednesday, during which Judge Randolph D. Moss denied a motion from Bochene to dismiss the case and ordered him to be examined by a mental health expert “to evaluate his competency to stand trial,” according to court officials.

The case was adjourned for a status report to Jan. 6, and Judge Moss set a trial date for March 30 in Washington.

Authorities said Bochene was one of hundreds of people who stormed and entered the Capitol Building in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 while a joint session of Congress was underway to certify the election of President Joseph Biden.

Authorities said Bochene was publicly photographed multiple times inside the building, and he later admitted to investigators who visited him at his home.

Bochene has gone back and forth on either representing himself or having an attorney since he was first charged in May 2021. As of May, he has been representing himself.

Bochene’s motion

On Sept. 9, Bochene filed motions to dismiss his case, in which he makes some rather strange claims and announcements.

“Be it known that I, the spirited, whole man with the given name of Bochenek, Joseph Eric come in equity for the grace of equity and with notice of repentance and prayer for equitable relief, shall or will appear as beneficiary of the estate known as Joseph-Eric: Bochenek with Eric Bochene being the individual entity referenced in the case above, by special appearance only, and not generally, only for the purpose of a demur to enter this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and cause of action for which can be granted, and to order the prosecution to settle any lawful claims using my right to subrogation,” Bochene wrote in his paperwork.

“The reason for dismissal is I can only appear in the capacity as a spirited, whole man and as beneficiary and executor of the estate named in this matter as Eric Bochene,” Bochene continued in his motion.

“If there is man or woman who can make a claim and will testify with firsthand knowledge of the harm I have caused them, let them come forth and make the claim of a tort against me, or there does not exist and actual damage by contract of physical harm nor cause of action. I have no knowledge of a contract indicating, I have a duty to here. This is yet another reason for dismissal.

“If there is no corpus delicti with proof of harm, or contract originator, who will testify under oath as to their damages, this matter must also be dismissed on those reasons alone, or otherwise the court would be involved in barratry and violation of my God given rights, deprivation of due process, and I believe this court is therefore also deprived of Article 3 standing to proceed, thus causing more harm to me if it does proceed. I require the opportunity to settle the matter with my brother privately if in fact a true contractual or physical harm has occurred.”

Bochene ended his motion by stating that any damages against him by any party involved in false claims would be billed at $100,000 per day, per person, should the matter continue.

Prosecution’s response

The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a response to the motion on Dec. 16, calling Bochene’s paperwork “frivolous and unintelligible.”

The prosecutors said Bochene only raised concerns with the receipt of commissions, gifts for procuring loans and subrogation, which are legal issues that are not related to his case. Subrogation is the assumption by a third party of another party’s legal right to collect a debt or damages, substituting one creditor for another or taking over another’s right to sue, prosecutors said.

“Because the defendant has failed to state either a factual or legal argument, based on a recognized principle, or make any other cognizable claim based on the statutes at issue or any legal precedent, the government respectfully requests that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied,” prosecutors wrote.

Judge Moss denied the motion.


No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here