berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 15,206
- 12,648
- 2,320
Supreme Court to weigh if Jan. 6 rioters can be charged with obstruction
Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.
The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/
I had not heard this was coming. It's a case with enormous potential implications. Both for some Jan. 6 riot defendants and for the election.
Defense counsel for the rioters claim charges applying to the obstruction of an official proceeding have been applied too broadly. That the statute used by prosecutors doesn't apply to them.
The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.
Any case involving the SC having a potential positive affect on His Orangeness's candidacy makes me nervous given its recent track record of ignoring established law in order to facilitate an ideologically driven outcome.
Much of the discussion on Tuesday is expected to center on how to properly interpret the text of a statute Congress amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron scandal. As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.
The law includes a penalty of up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/13/supreme-court-jan-6-obstruction/
I had not heard this was coming. It's a case with enormous potential implications. Both for some Jan. 6 riot defendants and for the election.
Defense counsel for the rioters claim charges applying to the obstruction of an official proceeding have been applied too broadly. That the statute used by prosecutors doesn't apply to them.
The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters.
Any case involving the SC having a potential positive affect on His Orangeness's candidacy makes me nervous given its recent track record of ignoring established law in order to facilitate an ideologically driven outcome.