What were the official causes of death for those who died during the January 6 riot?

1. How the medical examiner divided the fatalities — clarity and contrasts

The D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner released determinations that Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips died of natural causes attributable to cardiovascular disease, that Rosanne Boyland’s death was an accidental acute amphetamine intoxication, and that Ashli Babbitt’s death was ruled a homicide caused by a gunshot wound sustained during an attempt to breach the Speaker’s Lobby adjoining the House chamber. These findings provided a definitive, medical categorization that separated acute toxicologic and traumatic causes from preexisting cardiac events. The medical rulings clarified immediate medical causation but did not by themselves adjudicate legal or moral responsibility for the chaotic circumstances of January 6. ^{[1] [4]}

2. Officer Brian Sicknick — medical ruling versus law-enforcement framing

The chief medical examiner concluded that Officer Brian D. Sicknick died of natural causes — specifically strokes — after responding to the riot, and found no evidence of internal or external injuries or a fatal allergic reaction to chemical spray. The U.S. Capitol Police publicly accepted that medical ruling while continuing to describe Sicknick as having died in the line of duty defending the Capitol, and federal prosecutors investigated alleged assaults on Sicknick even though the autopsy undercut a direct homicide theory tied to those assaults. The medical finding complicated prosecutorial strategies and political narratives that initially portrayed his death as directly caused by assault or chemical exposure. ^{[2] [3] [5]}

3. Dispute points and prosecutorial consequences — what the facts changed

The medical examiner’s determination that Sicknick’s death was natural influenced the Justice Department’s investigative posture: homicide charges tied directly to causing his death became legally difficult to sustain given the autopsy’s absence of traumatic or toxicologic cause. Two suspects had been charged for allegedly assaulting officers with chemical spray, but the medical finding weakened any linkage between those assaults and Sicknick’s fatal strokes. At the same time, federal prosecutors continued to pursue numerous assault charges against January 6 defendants for injuries to officers, recognizing that criminal accountability for violence and obstruction does not hinge solely on the Sicknick autopsy. The medical ruling therefore separated medical causation from broader accountability efforts. ^{[2] [6]}

4. The human toll on law enforcement — later deaths and policy debates

Beyond the four immediate fatalities at the Capitol, several Capitol and Metropolitan Police officers who served on January 6 died in the weeks and months following the riot from conditions including strokes, heart attacks, and suicides, prompting congressional debate over whether those deaths should be designated line-of-duty for enhanced benefits. Reporting noted five officer deaths in the aftermath and lawmakers pushed for recognition and support for officers burdened by the event’s trauma. The medical examiner’s immediate rulings for January 6 fatalities did not encompass these later deaths, which raised separate questions about causation, workplace stress, and eligibility for federal benefits. ^[7]

5. Bigger picture — what these rulings do and do not resolve

The medical examiner’s determinations answered who died of what on January 6 but left open broader legal, political, and historical judgments. Medical cause-of-death findings—natural cardiovascular events, accidental drug intoxication, and a lethal police shooting—provide clinical clarity while not resolving questions about responsibility, preventability, or policy change. Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, families, and lawmakers have advanced differing narratives: some emphasize the medical findings to challenge early claims about causes, while others point to the events’ role in precipitating stress or violence and to accountability for those who assaulted officers or breached the Capitol. The official rulings therefore anchor one layer of fact while other layers—criminal liability, administrative recognition, and political interpretation—remain contested. ^{[1] [4] [3]}