Supreme Court rules against Biden DOJ in high-stakes Jan. 6 case

[Geee]

Washington Examiner

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jan. 6 defendant and former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, significantly affecting the Justice Department’s approach to prosecuting those involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The 6-3 decision narrows the scope of applying an obstruction charge to hundreds of riot defendants charged for their conduct on Jan. 6. The case revolved around whether Section 1512(c)(2) could be applied to hundreds of defendants, including Fischer and former President Donald Trump, who faced charges of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. The decision was mixed along ideological lines, with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the conservative majority and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal bloc.

 

The court’s decision ruled against the Biden administration’s interpretation of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s provision. This provision, initially aimed at addressing corporate fraud, was deemed by the court to be too broad when applied to Fischer’s actions during the Capitol riot. The majority of justices concluded that the law should not be used as a broad tool for prosecuting a wide range of behaviors unrelated to its original intent.

Fischer’s legal strategy focused on the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding,” which is found in the statute. His attorney, Jeffrey Green, argued that the law’s primary intent was to address evidence tampering, not to prosecute actions such as Fischer’s. The court’s majority agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito being a major voice of skepticism during oral arguments about the government’s broad reading of the statute.

The decision is a major setback for the Biden administration, which has relied on the obstruction statute in cases that affect more than 300 people involved in the Capitol riot. More than 50 of these defendants had pleaded guilty to the charge. The ruling raises questions about the future of these cases and the potential for appeals and overturned convictions.

Fischer, who had been facing up to 20 years in prison, will see the obstruction charge dismissed, though he will continue to face other charges related to the riot.

The ruling also has implications for Trump, who faces similar charges in a separate case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Supreme Court’s decision could influence the legal strategy and outcomes in Trump’s case, further complicating the legal landscape as the nation approaches another presidential election.

[Geee]

[Draggingtree]

4 hours ago, Geee said:

"Looking Good Little Lady"

[Geee]

Jan. 6 Cases Start Being Reopened After Supreme Court Ruling

Just hours after the Supreme Court narrowed an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of Jan. 6 rioters, trial-level judges have started to reopen some cases tied to the 2021 Capitol attack.

 

The federal judge who oversaw the case against Guy Reffitt — the first rioter convicted by a jury — ordered Reffitt’s attorneys and the Justice Department (DOJ) to propose a schedule for “further proceedings” in light of the justices’ decision by July 5, signaling a resentencing is imminent.

Reffitt was convicted on five counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge, stemming from Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral vote.

 

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to rein in the obstruction charge after a different rioter, Joseph Fischer, challenged that provision as being improperly applied to those who participated in the Capitol attack.

The judge who handled Reffitt’s case — U.S. District Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich, a Trump appointee — reopened several other rioters’ cases Friday afternoon, directing them to adhere to similar instructions as Reffitt.

Among the hundreds of defendants convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding are several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups — including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, respectively, though they were each convicted of the more serious charge of seditious conspiracy.

[Geee]

Supreme Court Rules for Jan. 6 Defendant, Implications for Trump Case

Although Fischer did not contest the sufficiency of six of the charges returned against him, he filed a motion to dismiss the charge that he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) by corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding—in this case, Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote. Fischer argued that this code section only applies to evidence tampering designed to impair an inquiry or investigation. 

 

This is significant because, as previously stated, approximately 350 other Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with violating this provision, and Count Three of the four-count indictment against Trump alleges a violation of this code section.

At its core, Fischer v. United States is about the meaning of a law passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal in the early 2000s—not whether the events of Jan. 6 were a riot or insurrection. When Enron discovered that its financial practices were being investigated by federal regulators, executives at the company’s auditor, Arthur Andersen, ordered the destruction of countless documents. They even brought in multiple shredders so they could destroy around 7,000 pounds of documents per hour for two weeks straight.

[Valin]

51 minutes ago, Geee said:

Supreme Court Rules for Jan. 6 Defendant, Implications for Trump Case

Something is missing from this....Guns.

[Geee]

Merrick Garland's Petulant Response to SCOTUS's Fischer Decision Is a Metaphor for Garland Himself

As might be expected, Garland was not happy.

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.  

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.

We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”

What a petulant and childish statement by a petulant and childish little excuse for a man.

[Valin]

Justice Department looks for ways to continue January 6 cases after Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court made it harder to charge defendants with obstruction in January 6 cases. But charges can still be brought if prosecutors can prove that rioters were intentionally trying to stop the arrival of certificates used to certify electoral votes during the riot.
Misty Severi

July 1 2024

Federal prosecutors on Monday have requested stays on pending January 6 court cases in order to evaluate a recent Supreme Court ruling that limited their prosecutions of the rioters. 

The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge defendants with obstruction in cases related to the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill. But charges can still be brought if prosecutors can prove that rioters were intentionally trying to stop the arrival of certificates used to certify electoral votes during the riot.

The prosecutors requested the delays in the trials for three rioters so far, including Oath Keeper member Donovan Crowl, who is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of obstruction, per Politico.

“The Court did not reject the application of [the obstruct law] to January 6,” federal prosecutors in a court filing. “Rather, the Court explained that the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records … or attempted to do so.”

The prosecutors are requesting 30-60 days to evaluate the impact of the ruling in Crowl's case. Their request for an indefinite delay in a second case to consider the Supreme Court ruling has already been approved by a different judge.

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Fallout continues from US Supreme Court Jan. 6 ruling
Joseph M. Hanneman

July 12 2024

Photo by Thomas Caldwell, used with permission

A California U.S. Army veteran serving an 18-month prison sentence for obstructing Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, was ordered released July 12 under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the most commonly charged Jan. 6 felony and its maximum 20-year prison term.

Jorge Aaron Riley, 46, of Sacramento, will be released “forthwith” from the federal lockup in Lompoc, California, under an order issued July 12 by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. Mehta granted Riley's request for bail pending resolution of a motion to vacate the sentence.

Riley’s release is the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark case Fischer v. United States. In a 6-3 opinion on June 28, the high court said the U.S. Department of Justice could only use the felony obstructing charge if it could prove defendants impaired the use of documents, objects, or “other things” used during counting of Electoral College votes at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6.

Riley was arrested in January 2021 and later indicted on five criminal counts, including felony obstruction and misdemeanors related to alleged trespassing on Capitol grounds. In March 2023, he accepted a plea deal on the one obstructing count under 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2).

(Snip)