Author Topic: Prosecutors face legal challenges over obstruction charge in Capitol riot cases  (Read 166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,284
Prosecutors face legal challenges over obstruction charge in Capitol riot cases

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/573531-prosecutors-face-legal-challenges-over-obstruction-charge-in-capitol

Quote
Federal judges are weighing legal challenges to one of the leading felony charges that government lawyers have brought in Capitol riot cases, potentially setting the stage for protracted legal battles over the Justice Department’s prosecutorial strategy in the wake of Jan. 6. 

In several cases, defendants have moved to throw out the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and the Jan. 6 certification of the Electoral College results does not qualify under the law as an “official proceeding.” 

At least three judges in recent weeks have pressed prosecutors on whether the charge is appropriate in the context of the riot. If courts rule that the felony count cannot be applied to Jan. 6 defendants or that the law is unconstitutional, it would deal a blow to prosecutors’ efforts to crack down on those who overran the Capitol.

Some federal judges overseeing the prosecutions have expressed concerns about the application of the law in the context of the Capitol riot and whether that could potentially prove problematic when applied to other circumstances.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta said at a hearing earlier this month that he was concerned about how prosecutors might wield the charge if it’s not subject to limitations.

“Essentially, what you said is ‘Trust us,’ ” said Mehta, who was appointed by former President Obama. ...

If this "Obstruction" charge is not dismissed, then it opens up challenges to any convictions, based on hecklers who "obstruct(ed) an official proceeding", such as during Bush's and Trump's SOTU speeches, or during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, not being prosecuted. If it is dismissed then the relevant prosecutions are defanged, declawed, and emasculated.
If, as anti-Covid-vaxxers claim, https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/robert-f-kennedy-jr-said-the-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-deadliest-vaccine-ever-made-thats-not-true/ , https://gospelnewsnetwork.org/2021/11/23/covid-shots-are-the-deadliest-vaccines-in-medical-history/ , The Vaccine is deadly, where in the US have Pfizer and Moderna hidden the millions of bodies of those who died of "vaccine injury"? Is reality a Big Pharma Shill?

Millions now living should have died. Anti-Covid-Vaxxer ghouls hardest hit.

Online Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,567
The Government’s Case Against Many Jan. 6 Defendants is in Legal Jeopardy
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2021, 08:33:59 pm »
Legal Insurrection by Ameer Benno 9/29/2021

The obstruction charge on which the government is relying so heavily may, in fact, be unconstitutional as applied to most of the Jan. 6 defendants.

The government’s case against many, if not most, of the January 6 defendants is in legal peril.

Over 650 people have been criminally charged in connection with the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  The main charge against hundreds of these defendants is felony “obstruction” under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).

That statute provides:

    “Whoever corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Most of the other charges against the Jan. 6 defendants involve misdemeanors sounding in trespass, vandalism and disorderly conduct for which the maximum sentence is one year imprisonment, thus making the obstruction charge the most serious by far.

Yet the Biden Department of Justice, in its facts-and-law-be-damned fervor to nail those on the political right to the wall, once again seemed to have overplayed its hand.

The obstruction charge on which the government is relying so heavily may, in fact, be unconstitutional as applied to the Jan. 6 defendants.

Donovan Crowl

To understand why this is so, one need only look to the case of Donovan Crowl.  Crowl, who according to papers filed by his attorney is a 50 year-old Marine veteran from Ohio with no prior criminal convictions, attended the Jan. 6 Stop the Steal Rally at The Ellipse in Washington D.C..

Thereafter, Crowl and others made their way to the Capitol.  According to the indictment against him, this group aligned in a “stack” formation and marched single file, each “keeping at least one hand on the shoulder of the other in front of them,” up the east side stairs of the Capitol.  At approximately 2:40 p.m., says Crowl’s lawyer, Crowl and the others in his “stack” passed through the Capitol doors that were already open and entered the Rotunda.

At 3:05 p.m. – just 20 minutes later – Crowl exited the building.  The others in Crowl’s “stack” had either left the Capitol contemporaneously with him or earlier.

Crowl did not destroy property, injure anyone or threaten to do so. He is not accused of possessing any weapons or of stealing documents or other items belonging to members of Congress.

The Charges

Crowl and 16 others eventually were arrested and charged on a singular indictment.

Counts One and Two of the indictment charged all of the defendants with “corruptly obstruct[ing]” the certification of the Electoral Vote in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiring with others to do so (Crowl also was charged with two misdemeanors – trespass and aiding and abetting the destruction of government property.)

Notably, the Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 6 had been suspended at 2:29 p.m. that day – 11 minutes before Crowl and the others entered the Capitol – and it did not resume until 9:02 p.m. that evening.

Nevertheless, the indictment alleges that the defendants’ entrance into the Capitol and presence there for no more than 20 minutes after Congress had recessed obstructed the Congressional proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2).

Crowl’s lawyer recently filed a motion to dismiss the obstruction charge.  In it, she argued that it was factually impossible for Crowl to have obstructed a Congressional proceeding that was already over at the time Crowl engaged in the conduct charged in the indictment.

More: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/09/the-governments-case-against-many-jan-6-defendants-is-in-legal-jeopardy/