The Department of Justice misused a law against evidence-tampering to charge some 350 January 6 protesters with an offense carrying a 20-year prison term, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
Supreme Court rules in favor of J6ers, DOJ incorrectly charged hundreds of defendants | Post Millennial | Thomas Stevenson:
June 28, 2024 - "The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a January 6 protester who entered the Capitol building and was charged with obstructing an official proceeding. Some 350 others who entered the Capitol building that day were also charged under the same law. The case may set a precedent for the various cases against the people who went into the Capitol who were charged under Section 1512(c)(2) of the US code....
"On Friday, the court ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania, saying 'To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.... The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the sufficiency of Count Three of Fischer’s indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).'"
Can Jan. 6 Rioters Be Charged with Obstruction? | Wall Street Journal Opinion | April 17, 2024:
Supreme Court Rules for Jan. 6 Defendant Who Challenged Obstruction Charge | Epoch Times | Matthew Vadum:
June 28, 2023 - "The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on June 28 in favor of Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer charged under an accounting law after he briefly entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.... The majority opinion in the case was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Concurring in the judgment were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.... The case was being closely watched because the Supreme Court’s decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including the Jan. 6-related case against former President Donald Trump.
"Mr. Fischer, from Jonestown, Pennsylvania, was indicted on several counts following the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, including obstructing an official proceeding under Enron-era obstruction law 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c). Convictions under the section can lead to 20 years in prison. The wording of 1512(c) is focused on documentation and ensuring it is made available for official proceedings. Section 1512(c) states:
Whoever corruptly (1) 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 (2) otherwise 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.
"The charge relates to the alleged obstruction of the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results, a proceeding that paved the way for the inauguration of President Joe Biden two weeks later. Mr. Fischer argued that he should not have been charged under section 1512(c), an evidence-tampering provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street....
"Some defendants who arrived at the Capitol after Congress was evacuated on Jan. 6, 2021, were also charged with obstructing an official proceeding.... Legal experts, including Mr. Fischer’s defense counsel, have criticized the Justice Department for using the law against defendants, including former President Donald Trump, arguing it is an inappropriate vehicle to prosecute people who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the congressional certification of election results.
"In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that proving a violation under Section 1512(c)(2) requires the government to establish that the defendant 'impaired' or attempted to impair the availability of a record, document, or other things used in an official proceeding.... [T]he federal government used a 'novel interpretation' of the statute that sweeps too broadly. That interpretation 'would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison, the chief justice wrote. As the government acknowledged during oral arguments, this could lead to a 'peaceful protester' being charged under Section 1512(c)(2) and facing 20 years in prison, he said. 'And the Government would likewise have no apparent obstacle to prosecuting under (c)(2) any lobbying activity that "influences" an official proceeding and is undertaken "corruptly."' Such peculiar results underscore how implausible the interpretation is, he wrote."
No comments:
Post a Comment