• Investing
  • Stock
Round Table Thoughts
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Home Economy Supreme Court wary of obstruction charge used against some Jan 6 riot defendants
Economy

Supreme Court wary of obstruction charge used against some Jan 6 riot defendants

by April 17, 2024
by April 17, 2024 0 comment
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed concern Tuesday over the federal government’s use of an obstruction law to prosecute a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant, which could have major implications for President Trump’s separate election interference case.

Joseph Fischer, a onetime police patrolman, is one of about 350 people charged by the Justice Department with ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ in connection with the disruption of Congress’ certification of then-former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

Trump is also facing that same obstruction count.

At issue is whether a federal law passed two decades ago to address corporate fraud and document destruction can be properly applied to those allegedly engaged in ‘assaultive conduct’ like participating in a riot.

Several on the bench expressed concern the obstruction statute sweeps too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct.

‘Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial, or access to a federal courthouse, qualify? Would a heckler in today’s audience [inside the Supreme Court] qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify?’ asked Justice Neil Gorsuch. He may have been referring to Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D–N.Y., charged with triggering a fire alarm in a House office building in a non-emergency.

But others on the court appeared to agree with the government’s view that Congress intended to allow a ‘classic catchall’ to include other obstructive behavior involving official proceedings.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the provision was designed to ‘cover every base,’ including the Capitol riots.

‘We’ve never had a situation before,’ she said, ‘with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently.’

A federal judge earlier dismissed the obstruction offense against three Jan. 6 criminal defendants, ruling it did not cover their conduct on the Capitol grounds. Those defendants include Fischer, Garret Miller of the Dallas area, and Edward Jacob Lang of New York’s Hudson Valley.

The high court accepted Fischer’s appeal for final review.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a 2019 Trump bench appointee, determined prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases, ruling a defendant must have taken ‘some action with respect to a document, record or other object’ to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

The Justice Department challenged that ruling, and a federal appeals court in Washington agreed with prosecutors that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

The relevant statute – 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2) – of the Corporate Fraud Accountability, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reads:  ‘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.’

Congress passed the law in 2002, after the Enron financial and accounting scandal. Executives at the Texas-based energy company were charged with fraud, and the company eventually went bankrupt.

Nichols, in his ruling in the Miller case, cited then-Senator Biden, who referred to the new provision at the time as ‘making it a crime for document shredding.’  

Both the government and Fischer – who was a North Cornwall Township police officer in Pennsylvania at the time – offer contrasting accounts of his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

In his appeal, Fischer’s lawyers argued he ‘was not part of the mob that forced the electoral certification to stop; he arrived at the Capitol grounds well after Congress recessed.’

And while he admits entering the Capitol building and pushing his way through the crowd, Fischer claims he also helpfully returned a pair of lost handcuffs to a U.S. Capitol police officer. After being pepper-sprayed by law enforcement, the defendant then says he left the complex just four minutes after entering.

But the Justice Department says Fischer ‘can be heard on the video yelling ‘Charge!’ before pushing through the crowd and entering the building. Once inside, he allegedly ran toward a line of police officers with another rioter while yelling profanities.

And the prosecution points to text messages he sent just before attending the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally where Trump spoke – and the subsequent march to the Capitol.

‘Take democratic congress to the gallows,’ he said in one post, and ‘Can’t vote if they can’t breathe.. lol.’

Fischer has pleaded not guilty to several charges, including disorderly and disruptive conduct; assault, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers; civil disorder; and obstruction. His trial is pending. His legal team argues hindering or affecting an official proceeding is too ambiguous, as applied to Fischer’s conduct on the Capitol grounds.

For more than 90 minutes Tuesday, the justices offered a range of hypotheticals about how the relevant obstruction statute could be applied in other contexts.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the criminal charges against Trump in the election interference case. She asked whether the charges were evidence-related over obstructing or impeding evidence and could be applied to Trump’s alleged efforts to disrupt the presidential electoral vote count and certification by Congress on Jan. 6.

‘Do you agree that the government could take a shot at proving that your client actually did try to interfere with … evidence because he was trying to obstruct the arrival of the certificates arriving to the vice president’s desk for counting?’ Barrett asked. 

Justice Clarence Thomas, who returned to the bench after missing Monday’s oral arguments for unexplained reasons, asked whether other violent, anti-government protests were prosecuted under the statute.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar struggled to find specific examples but did say the obstruction provision was used in document forgery and witness tampering cases.

‘For all the protests that have occurred in this court, the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses,’ said Justice Samuel Alito, suggesting the obstruction statute was not being applied fairly. 

‘What happened Jan. 6 was very, very, serious. I’m not equating this with that,’ added Alito.’ But we need to find what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.’

Fischer awaits trial on six other criminal offenses and has pleaded not guilty.

‘Why aren’t those six counts good enough?’ Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked, questioning the necessity of adding the obstruction offense.

How a Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer case would affect Trump’s separate prosecution for election interference is unclear. If Fischer prevails, the former president could then ask the federal courts to formally dismiss his obstruction charge.

That could prompt a new round of separate legal appeals that might go back to the Supreme Court for final review.  

Nine days after oral arguments in the Fischer case, the justices are expected to hold a public session to debate whether Trump enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for conduct in office when allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election results and certification.

That has paused Trump’s criminal conspiracy and obstruction trial indefinitely.

The separate challenge over the obstruction charge would also likely push the schedule well into next year.

The pending high court case is Fischer v. U.S. (23-5572). A ruling is expected by early summer.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
You Might Also Like
  • Iran-backed militias in Iraq claim responsibility for attack on US military base in Syria
  • GOP lines up culture war-heavy spending bills targeting military abortions, drag shows
  • Hamas terror attack exposes Al Jazeera for what it really is
  • Internal memo shows pro-Ukraine Republicans making case for aid to increasingly skeptical GOP
Share
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsapp

previous post
Top Republican demands Biden admin block Iranian foreign minister’s visit to UN: ‘an insult’ to victims
next post
Bitcoin Halving Could Bring Massive Upside!

You may also like

PDO Stock Price: Forecast and Dividend Insights

October 18, 2024

Connecticut Rep. Khan allegedly assaulted at Muslim holiday service in...

June 29, 2023

Israel considers preemptive strike on Iran as tensions escalate: report

August 5, 2024

Arkansas Gov. Sanders heads to Europe for first overseas trade...

June 15, 2023

What is VP Harris’ role in 25th Amendment and how...

July 9, 2024

Gallagher accuses Biden admin of being ‘divided’ on whether China...

January 26, 2023

Congress demands more information on Defense Secretary Austin’s hospitalization

January 9, 2024

GOP senators, House conservatives call for ‘fiscal sanity’ and stronger...

November 30, 2023

‘Squad’ member Rep. Tlaib calls for Netanyahu’s arrest; GOP senators...

May 8, 2024

Judge appointed in Missouri case to remove Dem attorney Kim...

February 25, 2023

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Week Ahead: NIFTY Stays In A Defined Range; Moving Past This Level Crucial For Resumption Of Upmove

      May 31, 2025
    • Breakouts, Momentum & Moving Averages: 10 Must-See Stock Charts Right Now

      May 31, 2025
    • Leadership Rotation Could Confirm Corrective Phase

      May 30, 2025
    • Run Your Stock Portfolio Like a Pro Sports Team

      May 30, 2025
    • U.S. foreign tax bill sends jitters across Wall Street

      May 30, 2025

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be...

      June 27, 2024 2,765 views
    • 2

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as...

      August 9, 2024 2,472 views
    • 3

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese...

      June 25, 2024 2,451 views
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful...

      July 10, 2024 2,432 views
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility...

      August 29, 2024 2,308 views

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,106)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,582)

    Popular Posts

    • 1

      Trump-era China sanctions ended by Biden may be revived under new House GOP bill

      June 27, 2024
    • 2

      Walz’s honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as Harris camp blasts ‘lying’ critics

      August 9, 2024
    • 3

      Biden appointee played key role in recruiting Chinese businesses to Delaware: ‘Longtime friends’

      June 25, 2024
    • 4

      Shein’s global ambitions leaves some cybersecurity experts fearful of Chinese spy threats

      July 10, 2024
    • 5

      Harris VP pick spent years promoting research facility that collaborated with ‘Chinese military company’

      August 29, 2024

    Latest News

    • Week Ahead: NIFTY Stays In A Defined Range; Moving Past...

      May 31, 2025
    • Breakouts, Momentum & Moving Averages: 10 Must-See Stock Charts Right...

      May 31, 2025
    • Leadership Rotation Could Confirm Corrective Phase

      May 30, 2025

    Categories

    • Economy (7,009)
    • Editor's Pick (2,106)
    • Investing (538)
    • Stock (2,582)

    Disclaimer: RoundTableThoughts.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 RoundTableThoughts.com. All Rights Reserved.

    Round Table Thoughts
    • Investing
    • Stock
    Round Table Thoughts
    • Economy
    • Editor’s Pick

    Read alsox

    Biden says Israel will stop fighting...

    November 17, 2023

    Tencent Stock: Q3 Profit Surges 47%,...

    November 13, 2024

    Assemblyman defends CA bill offering in-state...

    February 13, 2023
    Sign In

    Keep me signed in until I sign out

    Forgot your password?

    Password Recovery

    A new password will be emailed to you.

    Have received a new password? Login here