Supreme Court rules in favor of Jan. 6 rioter who contests obstruction charge

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to dismiss an obstruction charge for participating in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

The justices, in a 6-3 vote along non-ideological lines, gave victory to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, including former President Donald Trump, who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's election victory.

The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron accounting scandal, was intended only to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering, and not to the much broader range of situations that prosecutors had invoked. he covered.

The provision targets anyone who “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” but the court found that its scope is limited by a preceding sentence in the law referring to altering or destroying records.

Joseph Fischer, second from left, inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. U.S. District Court

The court sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings to determine whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that he was disappointed by the decision because of the impact it would have on the Justice Department's Jan. 6 cases, but stressed that it would not affect the majority of them.

The decision “limits an important federal law that the department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for this attack face appropriate consequences,” he added.

But the decision was welcomed by Trump, who said the Supreme Court “did the right thing” in the Fischer case.

“They have been waiting for this decision for a long time. They've been waiting a long time, and it was a great response. It was a great thing for people who have been treated so horribly,” Trump told supporters Friday at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia.

On Jan. 6, 2021, prosecutors said, Fischer joined the mob that was entering the Capitol from the east side. Charge! he yelled over and over before walking toward a police line, shouting: Motherf—–s! the government said.

He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, a video released as evidence in other Jan. 6 trials shows, he tried to appeal to the officers protecting the Capitol, telling them he was also an officer.

Fischer was previously a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania. (Another man named Joseph Fisher, who was also a police officer, was recently sentenced to 20 months in prison for his own role on January 6.)

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government's view of the law's scope “defies the most plausible understanding” of the statute in question, 18 U.S. Code 1512. That provision carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

The Justice Department's interpretation “would criminalize a broad range of prosaic behavior, exposing activists and lobbyists to decades in prison,” he added.

To prove a violation, prosecutors must now show that the defendant “impaired the availability or integrity, for use in an official proceeding, of records, documents, objects or … other materials used in the proceeding,” Roberts wrote.

He was joined by four other conservatives and one liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the majority. The two other liberal justices were joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett in dissent.

Jackson wrote a separate opinion arguing that Fischer's conduct could still be covered by the narrower interpretation of the law.

The joint session of Congress on January 6 to certify the election results “clearly used certain records, documents or objects, including among others those relating to the electoral votes themselves,” she added.

Barrett wrote that since no one disputes that the joint session was an official proceeding, the question of whether Fischer can be prosecuted “appears open and shut.”

The majority, she added, “simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said” when it wrote a broad law intended to cover a lot of different behaviors. She wrote that the court “failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches” in ruling against the prosecutors.

The ruling may not impact Trump's case. Prosecutors have said that even if Fischer wins, Trump's conduct would still be covered by a narrower interpretation of the law.

Fischer faces seven charges, only one of which was at the center of the Supreme Court case. Even if the obstruction charge is ultimately dismissed, the other charges, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, will remain in place.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has in the past been skeptical of prosecutors when they say the criminal provisions are widely enforced.

In his election interference case, Trump faces four counts, including one count of obstructing an official proceeding and another of conspiring to do so.

In another case, the Supreme Court is considering Trump's presidential immunity claim in the election interference case, which will also affect whether any charges stand before a trial.

While there are 247 cases out of more than 1,400 cases from January 6 that could be affected by the Fischer decision, there are only 52 cases in which it is the sole criminal offense, and only 27 of those defendants are still serving time. Most recently, on January 6, defendant Benjamin Martin was convicted Wednesday of obstructing an official proceeding, but he has also been convicted of civil and misdemeanor charges.

Recently, judges have considered the pending Fischer decision in their sentencing decisions. If a defendant had been convicted of another crime, such as assaulting an officer, he has gone on record as saying he would have reached the same verdict regardless of the Supreme Court's decision in Fischer.

Sources 1/ https://Google.com/ 2/ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-jan-6-rioter-challenging-obstruction-char-rcna155902 The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos