General Category > SCOTUS News

Jan. 6 defendant asks Supreme Court to throw out obstruction charge

(1/2) > >>

Elderberry:
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 4/9/2024

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on April 16 in the case of a former police officer from Pennsylvania who entered the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks. Joseph Fischer, who was charged with (among other things) assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the Capitol, and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, has asked the justices to throw out the charge that he obstructed an official proceeding, arguing that the law that he was charged with violating was only intended to apply to evidence tampering.

More than 300 other Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with violating the law, which was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal. It is also at the center of two of the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. – the same case in which the justices will hear argument on April 25 regarding Trump’s claims of immunity.

Before the Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol, prosecutors note, Fischer sent text messages in which he indicated to acquaintances that members of Congress “[c]an’t vote if they can’t breathe … lol” and that he might need his police chief “to post my bail … It might get violent.” And on Jan. 6, prosecutors say, Fischer urged rioters to “charge” and “hold the line” and was part of the mob that pushed the police. Fischer says that he arrived at the Capitol after the joint meeting of Congress to count the certified votes in the 2020 presidential election had already gone into recess. He was inside the building for only a few minutes, he contends, where he was pushed into the police line by the crowd.

In a message on social media on Jan. 7, Fischer wrote that he had been “pepper balled and [pepper] sprayed … but entry into the Capital [sic] was needed to send a message that we the people hold the real power.”

The FBI arrested Fischer on Feb. 19, 2021, and charged him with, among other things, assaulting officers of the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department, the primary law enforcement agency for the District of Columbia. He was also charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to “otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.”

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols dismissed the obstruction charge against Fischer. In another case involving a Jan. 6 defendant, Nichols had concluded that the previous subsection, Section 1512(c)(1), which prohibits tampering with evidence “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” limits Section 1512(c)(2) to cases involving evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding.

The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reversed. Judge Florence Pan, in the lead opinion for the court, wrote that the “meaning of the statute is unambiguous”: It “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the prior subsection.

Pan acknowledged that “outside of the January 6 cases brought in this jurisdiction, there is no precedent for using” the obstruction provision “to prosecute the type of conduct at issue in this case.” But, Pan continued, quoting a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court, “the fact that a statute can be applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth.”

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/jan-6-defendant-asks-supreme-court-to-throw-out-obstruction-charge/

mystery-ak:

--- End quote ---

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1780278701516595237

libertybele:
Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters

The Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on the legality of obstruction charges lodged against some 300 rioters arrested for breaking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The court's conservatives questioned whether the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was aimed at corporate accounting fraud, can be used more broadly to prosecute those who obstruct "any official proceeding," including Congress' 2021 certification of President Biden's election victory.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch noted that the law made it a crime to destroy or conceal documents to impair an "official proceeding," but they voiced doubt over extending that to any disruptions of a proceeding.

If someone "pulls a fire alarm" to delay a vote in Congress, is that a federal felony subject to 20 years in prison, Gorsuch asked.

While the justices sounded divided, most of the conservatives suggested they were skeptical of upholding the obstruction charges.

Such a ruling would deal a blow to the Jan. 6 prosecutions, but it would not prevent punishing them for their actions.

More than 1,200 rioters were arrested for the Jan. 6 break-in at the Capitol.

Most were charged with assaulting the police officers who were on duty or with disorderly and disruptive conduct. Some were also charged with carrying dangerous or deadly weapons.

A few hundred were also charged with seeking to obstruct an official proceeding.

One of those was Joseph Fischer, an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer, who said on social media that he expected the attack on the Capitol "might get violent" but that it was needed "to send a message that we the people hold the real power."

When Fischer was arrested, he was charged with six counts of assault and disruption as well as a seventh charge of obstruction, a charge which could send him to prison for several years.

A federal judge rejected the obstruction charge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals restored it in a 2-1 decision.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Fischer's public defender contending the obstruction charge should be thrown out on the grounds that the law protects only documents and evidence, not the proceeding itself.

At issue is how to interpret two clauses in the law. It states that it is a crime if someone "corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.".............

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-casts-doubt-obstruction-161548743.html

DB:
"If someone "pulls a fire alarm" to delay a vote in Congress, is that a federal felony subject to 20 years in prison, Gorsuch asked."

Ouch...

mystery-ak:
Legal experts say Biden admin's legal theory in Jan 6 prosecution 'on the ropes' after Supreme Court argument
Decision expected this summer in case that could have implications for former President Trump
By Brianna Herlihy Fox News
Published April 16, 2024 2:24pm EDT | Updated April 16, 2024 3:15pm EDT

Legal experts said the Biden administration was "on the ropes" in Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a case questioning whether a Jan. 6 rioter can be charged with a federal "obstruction" crime, which carries implications for former President Trump.

On Tuesday, Jeffrey Green, lawyer for Joseph Fischer – who is one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol – argued that the federal statute shouldn’t apply and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases.

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

But legal experts told Fox News Digital that the government’s argument started to "fall apart" after questioning from the justices.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-say-biden-admins-legal-theory-jan-6-prosecution-ropes-supreme-court-argument

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page