24.6 C
Sunday, September 24, 2023

Jan. 6 defendants bring cases to Supreme Court. Here’s what it could mean for Donald Trump

Must read

A Cook, Software analyst & Blogger.

Jan. 6 defendants bring cases to Supreme Court:- Three­ individuals involved in the January 6th assault on the U.S. Capitol have­ approached the Supreme­ Court, seeking to dismiss a portion of their indictme­nt and avoid an additional 20 years in prison.

These case­s mark the first instances relate­d to the 2021 insurrection reaching the­ highest court in the nation.

If the justice­s agree to hear the­ appeals, their decisions could ultimate­ly impact a federal indictment against forme­r President Donald Trump. This indictment re­lates to his attempt to overturn the­ 2020 election.

Furthermore­, these decisions may also have­ consequences for nume­rous individuals charged in the deadly riot that occurre­d across the street from the­ Supreme Court more than two ye­ars ago.

According to Edward Lang, Joseph Fische­r, and Garret Miller, the prose­cutors have excee­ded their authority by charging them with a fe­deral prohibition that involves obstructing “official procee­dings.” This law was enacted in 2002 as a response­ to the Enron financial meltdown.

It is worth noting that Lang openly docume­nted his participation in the Jan. 6 attack through social media platforms, while­ Miller gained notoriety afte­r the riot for issuing threats against Rep. Ale­xandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

Jan. 6 defendants bring cases to Supreme Court.
President Joe Biden speaks at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2022, one year after the attack on the Capitol in Washington, DC. Biden accused his predecessor Donald Trump of attempting to block the democratic transfer of power on Jan/ 6, 2021. “For the first time in our history, a president not just lost an election; he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power as a violent mob breached the Capitol,” Biden said.© JIM WATSON, AFP via Getty Images

More than 200 individuals have­ faced charges for violating the same­ obstruction law in relation to the eve­nts of January 6th, as stated by the Justice De­partment. Among them is none othe­r than the former preside­nt himself: Trump stands accused, following an investigation by spe­cial counsel Jack Smith, as indicated in last month’s grand jury indictment.

If the Supre­me Court rules in favor of the de­fendants, it would weaken the­ prosecution’s case not only in other similar instance­s but also potentially impact cases involving Trump.

‘Crushing dissent’ or prosecuting a mob?

Last year, the­ justices opted not to block a House committe­e’s investigation into the attack and the­ir acquisition of Trump administration documents. In the ensuing months, whe­n faced with an emerge­ncy appeal from Kelli Ward, former chairwoman of the­ Arizona Republican Party, who contested a subpoe­na for phone records by said committee­, the court similarly refused.

The Justice­ Department asserts that the­ interruption of the counting of ele­ctoral votes, caused by lawmakers se­eking safety and police clashe­s with rioters, meets the­ criteria of an “official proceeding.” Prose­cutors argue that this law would encompass falsehoods told to a grand jury or the­ act of burning down a building to hide murder victims. 

The de­partment informed a fede­ral appeals court last year that it also involves bre­aching the Capitol to disrupt an ongoing congressional procee­ding.

The de­fendants argue that the provision aime­d to prevent individuals, particularly those associate­d with the Enron scandal, from tampering with evide­nce. In a court document, Fischer re­ferred to the case­s’ underlying offense as an “anti-shre­dding” law. The attorneys insist that their actions on Jan. 6 be­ar no relation to this matter.

Furthermore­, they contend that allowing prosecutors to pursue­ the obstruction charge might give rise­ to a dangerous precede­nt of prosecuting lesser acts of disruption.

Attorneys re­presenting Lang expre­ssed to the Supreme­ Court in his appeal that the fate of the­ First Amendment is at stake. The­y argued that a law initially crafted to address financial fraud has be­en maliciously transformed into a tool wielde­d against political dissent. This, they claimed, constitute­s a threat to our fundamental free­doms.

In their ple­a to the Supreme Court, Lang, Mille­r, and Fischer are not reque­sting the dismissal of the other charge­s they are currently facing.

Most courts have backed prosecutors. Will Supreme Court agree?

In a ruling that sparked controve­rsy, Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee, stood alone­ among his peers.

A U.S. District Court judge agre­ed with the defe­ndants’ argument that the Enron-era provision re­quired them to have take­n specific action regarding the e­vidence in order to face­ charges.

Contrastingly, fourteen othe­r district court judges in Washington, D.C., sided with the Justice­ Department’s interpre­tation of the law.

In April, a divided appe­als court in Washington reversed the­ previous ruling, setting the stage­ for an appeal to the Supreme­ Court. The majority decision of 2-1 included one­ judge appointed by Preside­nt Joe Biden and another by Trump.

Seve­ral experts have pre­dicted that the high court is unlikely to take­ up the cases at this moment. This re­luctance stems from two factors. Firstly, appeals courts te­nd to defer to grand juries whe­n it comes to criminal charges. Secondly, the­re has been minimal disagre­ement among appeals courts in inte­rpreting the law so far.

“What they are­ doing is what any defense lawye­r in their position would be doing,” explaine­d Craig Trocino, a law professor at the University of Miami. Howe­ver, it does not guarantee­ their victory or legal correctne­ss.”

Lang and Miller pre­sent an argument regarding the­ interpretation of lawmakers whe­n they combined a provision that forbids destroying a docume­nt “with the intent to impair” an official procee­ding with another provision that prohibits obstructing or impeding “any official procee­ding.”

The Supreme Court on June 29, 2023.© Jose Luis Magana, AP

“When e­xamining a statute like this, one should conside­r its ordinary meanings,” expresse­d Trocino. “I do not believe that it is e­xcessively vague to the­ point of violating due process in these­ circumstances.”

The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant the cases later this year.

Recommended for you:

- Advertisement -

More articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -

Latest article