Amidst a legal confrontation impacting several prosecutions stemming from the Jan. 6 Capitol assault, two defendants are petitioning for release pending a pivotal decision from the nation’s highest court.
In the latest development, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up an appeal associated with the federal prosecution of Joseph Fischer, as disclosed by Law and Crime on Tuesday, January 2, 2024.
Fischer, a resident of Pennsylvania, was previously convicted of obstructing a congressional proceeding and additional charges arising from the Capitol riot.
More Read
The riot unfolded as supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, forcibly breaching its entrances while Congress was in the process of certifying President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.
These defendants’ bid for release highlights the significant legal uncertainties emanating from this unprecedented event, casting a shadow over numerous pending cases.
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on Fischer’s appeal is anticipated to wield substantial influence on the course of multiple prosecutions linked to the chaotic events of that crucial day.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Joseph Fischer, formerly a police officer with the North Cornwall Township Police Department in Pennsylvania, reportedly yelled “Charge!” before advancing towards a line of fellow officers during the Capitol riot.
He stands accused of engaging in a physical altercation with at least one police officer, among a slew of charges, including civil disorder, assaulting officers, trespassing, and disorderly conduct. The contentious federal obstruction charge, sparking debates since the riot-related prosecutions commenced, is also leveled against him.
Defense attorneys have vigorously contested the obstruction charge against alleged rioters, facing limited success in challenging its applicability. Despite most legal avenues upholding its validity, only one district-level judge in Washington, D.C., ruled it inapplicable to Jan. 6 cases. An appellate court later upheld the charge in a divided decision issued in April.
The pending Supreme Court review has prompted filings from separate defendants, hinting at potential upheaval if the current justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, align with the ex-president’s supporters.
Sandra Weyer, from Pennsylvania, faced conviction in June following a bench trial and received a 14-month prison sentence in September. Prosecutors asserted that Weyer not only bragged about breaching the Capitol but also filmed herself ridiculing a New York Times photographer, whose violent assault and robbery by multiple rioters she continued to record.
Matthew Bledsoe, a Tennessee resident, was convicted in July 2022 after a jury trial and later sentenced in October 2022 to four years in prison. Reports indicated Bledsoe was seen scaling a Capitol wall, entering through a fire door at the Senate Wing, and climbing a statue.
Both individuals were found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), obstructing an official proceeding of Congress.
The Justice Department reported charging over 327 individuals linked to the Jan. 6 attack with the federal obstruction offense, carrying a possible 20-year prison term, resulting in at least 92 convictions.
The critical question before the justices revolves around whether the D.C. Circuit misinterpreted the statute, particularly regarding its applicability to actions unrelated to investigations.
Prosecutors argue that the statute’s second subsection, commencing with “otherwise,” serves as an expansive provision intended to encompass any corrupt action impeding an official proceeding. In contrast, defendants contend that the statute’s scope should be confined to actions such as the destruction of potentially incriminating documents, akin to the Arthur Andersen consulting firm’s actions on behalf of Enron during the latter’s collapse.
Attorneys representing Bledsoe and Weyer, who have filed appeals for their clients’ cases, are seeking their release pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fischer case. Weyer’s attorney emphasizes her non-violent charges and low flight risk during her pretrial proceedings.
