According to The Epoch Times, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted the appeal of Joseph Wayne Fischer, a defendant in the January 6 Capitol riot cases. Fischer’s appeal challenges the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of the evidence-tampering law to prosecute individuals for obstruction of Congress in connection with the Capitol riot.
Fischer’s case is one of three identical petitions for case review by January 6 defendants facing charges of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding—the joint session of Congress convened for the counting and certification of Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021.
The DOJ has charged nearly 330 defendants, including former President Donald Trump, with obstruction related to the events of January 6. Trump was charged in August with counts related to obstructing the joint session of Congress.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the appeal raises questions about the future of the DOJ’s prosecution of January 6 cases, with some speculating that it could lead to the end of the prosecution of President Trump in Washington, D.C.
“The decision by SCOTUS today to take up the appeal on the 1512 ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ case means the Trump D.C. case will not be going to trial,” Mr. Shipley wrote on X. “This is the easy way to make that happen without directly acting on the Trump case on an expedited basis.”
The defendants argue that the charges of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, carrying a potential 20-year prison sentence, should not have been applied to their cases. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendants, it could impact hundreds of individuals who were charged with felonies instead of misdemeanors for their actions during the Capitol riot.
One of the key legal arguments centers around the interpretation of 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(2), with U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols having thrown out the charges in the cases of Fischer and others. Judge Nichols stated that §1512(c)(2) requires actions related to evidence tampering, which he determined were not present in the January 6 prosecutions.
If the case turns in favor of the defendants, this will be life-altering for hundreds of people who were unjustly persecuted for a felony offense instead of the misdemeanor that was crafted by Congress for the trespass behavior at issue
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal has been seen by some as a potential rebuke of the DOJ’s use of the law in January 6 cases. Critics argue that the charges have been used as a tool to pressure defendants into taking plea deals, with the specter of a 20-year prison sentence looming over them. The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for the broader landscape of January 6 prosecutions.
