Have any seditious conspiracy convictions from January 6 been overturned on appeal and why?

1. Where the record shows convictions, not reversals

Federal prosecutions of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leaders resulted in seditious‑conspiracy convictions and substantial sentences in the trial courts. The Justice Department announced guilty verdicts for multiple Oath Keepers defendants and for leaders of the Proud Boys in separate prosecutions ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting and DOJ releases in the provided materials focus on convictions and sentencing rather than appellate reversals ^{[1] [2]}.

2. No cited appellate reversals in the supplied reporting

None of the supplied sources reports an appellate court overturning a Jan. 6 seditious‑conspiracy conviction. The documents include trial verdicts, sentencing updates, and discussion of appeals in the abstract (for example, appeals of sentence length), but they do not document any successful appeal that vacated a seditious‑conspiracy conviction itself ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Therefore—based on the available reporting—there are no documented reversals to cite.

3. What kinds of appellate arguments have been anticipated or used

The materials note two main, recurring themes in legal debate over seditious‑conspiracy prosecutions: First Amendment defenses and the need to prove an agreement to use force (or concrete plans), rooted in prior cases such as the Hutaree trial and the 1995 "Blind Sheikh" prosecution ^{[3] [4]}. Second, defendants and some commentators have sought to limit culpability by trying to tie or disentangle actions from political leaders (e.g., efforts to bar defense claims blaming then‑President Trump), which prosecutors sometimes resisted ^[7]. These are the types of arguments that could underpin appeals, though the provided sources do not show appellate outcomes overturning convictions ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Precedents that inform appellate review

Past seditious‑conspiracy litigation matters to appeals: a 2012 trial (Hutaree) produced acquittals when the judge determined prosecutors relied too heavily on protected rhetoric rather than proof of concrete plans to execute rebellion, illustrating the constitutional limits appellate courts evaluate when reviewing convictions ^{[3] [4]}. The 1995 convictions of Omar Abdel‑Rahman remain a rarely cited successful seditious‑conspiracy prosecution, but appeals there raised similar free‑speech and planning‑evidence questions ^{[3] [2]}. Those precedents set the legal landscape that appellate courts would consider in any challenge to Jan. 6 convictions ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Political and procedural developments that could affect appeals

The supplied material records broader political and governmental actions — including mentions of pardons and commutations in later summaries and pieces of reporting — that change the practical import of appeals even without formal reversals ^{[8] [9]}. For example, later summaries in the provided corpus assert mass clemency or commutation actions affecting Jan. 6 defendants; those are executive acts, not appellate court decisions, and do not equal judicial reversals ^{[8] [9]}. Available sources do not connect those executive actions to appellate vacatur of convictions.

6. Limits of this review and where to look next

This summary relies only on the provided sources and therefore cannot assert anything outside them; if you seek confirmation of any appellate decisions after the dates in these items, consult the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court dockets, DOJ appeals filings, and reliable court‑reporting outlets for updates. The supplied results show trial convictions, appellate sentencing litigation in planning, and historic acquittals on free‑speech grounds as touchstones, but they do not document a reversed Jan. 6 seditious‑conspiracy conviction ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

If you want, I can search the D.C. Circuit and major news outlets for appellate opinions or pending appeals in these specific cases and report back with court citations and dates.