WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday in favor of a Jan. 6 defendant charged with obstructing an official proceeding quickly set off activity to revisit that charge in other Capitol riot cases, but it is unlikely to derail the case of interference in federal elections by former President Donald Trump.
Justice Department officials and lawyers for the Jan. 6 defendants said the court’s 6-3 ruling in the case involving former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer would not have an immediate effect on most of the more than 1,000 convictions secured by prosecutors. .
The court’s decision is expected to have the greatest impact on the 52 protesters who were convicted and sentenced for obstruction and no other crimes. There are currently 27 defendants serving prison time on criminal obstruction charges alone.
“There are no instances in which the Department has charged a January 6th defendant solely with the crime at issue in the Fischer case,” Attorney General Merrick Garland noted in a statement Friday.
All defendants charged with obstruction faced other charges; the 52 who faced only the felony obstruction charge also faced misdemeanor charges related to efforts to disrupt Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.
Garland went on to say that while he was “disappointed” in the Supreme Court’s decision, the Department of Justice “will continue to use every tool available to hold those criminally responsible for the January 6th attack on our democracy accountable.”
One January 6 defendant who likely won’t see much impact from Friday’s ruling is Trump, whose election interference case involves an obstruction charge.
Andrew Weissmann, who served as lead prosecutor in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, said on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” that he did not expect it to affect the case.
“I don’t think this has any effect on Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment,” Weissmann said.
Sara R. FitzpatrickAttorney following the Fischer case, agreed that the decision “very clearly” does not affect special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump, which is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on Trump’s presidential immunity claim on Monday.
“The decision essentially limits Section 1512(c)(2) to conduct that falsifies or otherwise tampers with evidence or any other document or object used in an official proceeding,” Fitzpatrick said. “The statute would still apply to people accused of doing anything with any document involved in that certification, and one of the things that President Trump is accused of is working to create fake voter certificates and having them used instead of the certificates real elections. .”
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case.
Speaking at a campaign rally on Friday, Trump praised the court’s decision.
“They have been waiting for this decision for a long time. They’ve been waiting a long time and this was a great response. This was great for the people who were treated so horribly,” Trump told his supporters in Chesapeake, Virginia.
Records for other defendants from January 6 began arriving on the docket on Friday. Robert Turner, who was condemned of obstruction, as well as a number of charges, including two other crimes – civil disorder and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers – following a jury trial this month, requested that a judge enter a motion for acquittal because of the Fischer decision.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras on Friday suspended a trial scheduled for July 22 after prosecutors filed a joint motion with Jan. 6 defendant William Pope seeking to delay the case following the Supreme Court ruling. Cut.
“Both parties are evaluating the decision, which has ramifications for the charges, presentation of evidence and jury instructions at trial in this matter,” the joint document said. he said.
U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich took a proactive approach Friday, asking prosecutors and defense attorneys in three cases involving defendants convicted and sentenced on Jan. 6 to propose a timeline for additional proceedings on the impact of decision, noting that the defendants would have resentencing hearings. These defendants were Guy Reffitt – the first January 6th defendant to go to trial – who was sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison in August 2022; Ronald Sandlin, who filmed himself attacking police officers and breaking into the Senate Chamber and was sentenced to five years in federal prison in December 2022; and Jacob Travis Clark, who was sentenced to 33 months in prison in October 2023.
Friedrich also suggested she would likely dismiss the obstruction charge against Jan. 6 defendant Zachary Alam, who used his helmet to break the windows overlooking the House speaker’s lobby shortly before rioter Ashli Babbitt was shot. and dead. Alam was due to be sentenced next month following his conviction on a series of charges last year. Friedrich also asked both parties to submit documents regarding the impact of the Fischer decision on Alam’s sentencing guidelines.
Supporters of the January 6 defendants and the lawyers who represented them in court reacted positively to the Supreme Court’s decision, although they acknowledged that it was complex and that its ultimate impact was yet to be determined.
“Open the prison gates!” joked a lawyer who represented the Jan. 6 defendants, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor who represented dozens of Capitol riot defendants, said the fallout from the Fischer ruling will be complicated.
“It’s not necessarily going to resolve cases in the way that some seem to hope,” he said.
“You’ve never had a situation like this,” he said. “I am not aware of any previous circumstance where hundreds of people have been charged with the same crime for the same events, only for the Supreme Court to say that it was applied improperly, and all of these cases have to be reviewed at the same time. . In that sense, how this happens is far from obvious.”
Shipley said there would be many defendants behind bars at this time who will be affected by the decision and will seek to be released on bail until all implications can be resolved. But he also said there is risk involved for some defendants in seeking relief.
“There will be cases where the defendant pleads guilty to a single charge and the government dismisses all other charges. Well, the government can recharge all the other charges,” Shipley said. “The government has a 99.9% conviction rate, what do they have to fear? They have nothing to fear about coming back, refilling the box and doing more counts. So there is a real decision to be made for some of these defendants as to whether it is worth trying to get away with their crimes.”
On the other side of the issue, Justice Department officials say that while the Supreme Court’s decision will certainly have an impact, it will not change their work or their approach to processing cases.
“It’s not the death sentence to our efforts that some say it is,” a law enforcement official told NBC News.
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
