Podcast Summary
January 6 insurrection prosecutions: The US Supreme Court's decision in U.S. versus Fisher limits the use of the obstruction of an official proceeding charge (18 USC 1512 C2) against insurrectionists to cases where the interference is done with the intent to influence or prevent testimony or the destruction, concealment, or alteration of records or other objects.
The US Supreme Court's decision in U.S. versus Fisher does not necessarily mean the end of prosecutions against those involved in the January 6 insurrection, including former President Donald Trump. The case centered around the use of the obstruction of an official proceeding charge (18 USC 1512 C2) against the "Gang of Six" insurrectionists. The Department of Justice argued that anyone interfering with an official proceeding, such as the electoral count, could be charged under this statute. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute only applies when the interference is done with the intent to influence or prevent the testimony, or the destruction, concealment, or alteration of records or other objects. The insurrectionists' actions, while aimed at stopping the electoral count, did not meet this requirement. Despite this setback, the DOJ still has other charges and evidence against those involved in the insurrection, and the investigation is ongoing.
Supreme Court's Capitol insurrection ruling: The Supreme Court's ruling on 1512 C2 in the context of the Capitol insurrection cases limits its application to instances of physical evidence tampering or destruction, potentially impacting future prosecutions and the Department of Justice's strategy.
The Supreme Court's decision to limit the application of 1512 C2 in the context of the Capitol insurrection cases could have significant implications for future prosecutions. The Court's ruling, which centered around the requirement of physical evidence tampering or destruction, leaves open a pathway for federal judges and the Department of Justice to pursue charges under this statute if they can demonstrate that the integrity of evidence or processes is being compromised. This is important because the Department of Justice had relied heavily on the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, which carried a potential sentence of up to 20 years, against many Capitol riot defendants. With this charge now potentially limited, the Department of Justice may need to reconsider its strategy for prosecuting some of these cases and could instead focus on other related charges. As Justice Katanji Brown Jackson noted in her concurrence, this interpretation aligns with previous case law, and it provides a potential avenue for the Department of Justice to continue pursuing charges related to the Capitol insurrection.
Electoral process falsification: Attempts to fabricate false electoral documents or impair the integrity of records, documents, or objects used during electoral proceedings can still be considered under the 1512 C2 violation.
The use of false evidence to undermine the integrity of the electoral process, as seen in the case of Donald Trump and associates' attempts to fabricate fake elector certificates during the Jan 6 Congress certification, still falls under the 1512 C2 violation. Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's concurrence in the Supreme Court decision emphasizes that impairment or attempted impairment of the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used during the electoral proceeding, even if not explicitly mentioned in the statute, may still apply. District court judges are encouraged to consider such conduct under the 1512 C2 charge.
Capitol insurrection investigations: The Supreme Court's decision on the use of false evidence in the Capitol riot cases expands the Department of Justice's ability to prosecute insurrectionists for additional offenses.
The Jan. 6 Capitol insurrectionists faced charges beyond 1512 C2, providing the Department of Justice with opportunities to prosecute them for more offenses. The Supreme Court's decision on the use of false evidence in the context of the Capitol riot also paves the way for future investigations and potential charges against insurrectionists. Meanwhile, for those seeking to improve their brain health, MOSH bars offer a delicious and nutritious solution. Founded by Maria Shriver and Patrick Schwarzenegger, MOSH bars are infused with brain-boosting ingredients like Ashwagandha, lion's mane, collagen, omega-3s, and cognizant. With ten flavors, including plant-based options, MOSH bars provide an energy boost and support cognitive function. To save 20% off and receive free shipping, visit moshlife.com/legalAF and choose between the bestsellers or plant-based trial packs.
Criminal records and Supreme Court decisions: Even if a charge is reversed or vacated, the underlying conduct can still impact sentencing, and the DOJ may prosecute all charges if a related record-keeping law is overturned.
Even if a charge is reversed or vacated by the Supreme Court, the underlying conduct that led to the indictment, conviction, and sentencing can still be considered by the judge during sentencing. This means that individuals who have been charged or convicted of other crimes may face harsher sentences if one of their charges is overturned. The Department of Justice was strategic in including a provision in their plea deals allowing them to prosecute individuals for all charges listed in their indictment, including those that were agreed to be dropped, if 1512 C2, which deals with the integrity and validity of records, was overturned. This is a reality for those facing criminal charges and highlights the importance of understanding the potential implications of Supreme Court decisions on individual cases.
1512C2 and Capitol riots: The Supreme Court's ruling on 1512C2 does not guarantee mass releases from jail for Capitol rioters and may not allow for retrials for all. The focus is on violent individuals who engaged in criminal acts during the breach.
The Supreme Court's ruling on 1512C2, a statute used to prosecute individuals involved in the Capitol riots, does not mean mass releases from jail. The Department of Justice is working to keep these individuals in custody, and the ruling may not allow for retrials for all. The Supreme Court did not recognize certain aspects of the statute, but eliminating it could lead to more lawless behavior. Many rioters believed they would face no criminal consequences due to Trump's statements about pardons, and some engaged in violent acts using various weapons. These individuals, who have been violent during the Capitol breach, are the focus of 1512C2 prosecutions.
January 6th Capitol Riots Prosecutions: The Supreme Court's decision not to block the use of an existing statute for Capitol riots prosecutions does not create new crimes, but allows for investigation obstruction charges.
The Supreme Court's decision not to block the use of an existing statute (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)) to prosecute individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol riots does not mean the Department of Justice created new crimes. The DOJ can only apply existing laws to new conduct. The upcoming Congress, hopefully led by Democrats, may create new laws specific to the January 6th events. The DOJ's use of this statute was not a mistake, as it had been used by the Trump administration against the same individuals before Biden took office. The Supreme Court's decision also allows for the prosecution of efforts to obstruct investigations into the integrity and validity of elections. The Court's decision, along with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's concurrence, will continue to impact the ongoing investigations and prosecutions related to the Capitol riots.
Legal implications of current events: Michael Popok's YouTube channel 'Legal AF Law Breakdown' offers in-depth analysis and exclusive content on legal issues at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Patreon community for access.
Michael Popok, a legal expert and host of the YouTube channel "Legal AF Law Breakdown," discusses current legal issues at the intersection of law and politics. The show airs every Wednesday and Saturday at 8 p.m. Eastern time and provides in-depth analysis and exclusive content not found elsewhere. For access to this content, viewers can join the Patreon community for the price of a few cups of coffee. Popok also shares his hot takes on legal matters outside of the regular show schedule. The channel provides valuable insights for those interested in understanding the legal implications of current events.