Jan. 6 lawyer: Supreme Court decision may alter the game for Trump and defendants
The Supreme Court heard arguments from an attorney representing a Jan. 6 defendant on a charge some believe is misconstrued. The charge, “obstructing an official proceeding“ under 18 U.S. Code § 1512, relates to tampering with evidence, stemming from the Enron scandal. Attorney Jeffrey Greene, representing Joseph Fischer, contested the application of this statute in Fischer’s case. The Supreme Court listened to arguments presented by an attorney who represented a defendant involved in the events of January 6. The discussion revolved around the charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” as outlined in 18 U.S. Code § 1512, originally addressing evidence tampering during the Enron scandal. Attorney Jeffrey Greene, on behalf of Joseph Fischer, challenged the statute’s relevance to Fischer’s situation.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from an attorney representing a Jan. 6 defendant regarding one charge some believe was taken out of context.
The charge “obstructing an official proceeding” section 18 U.S. Code § 1512 was created during the Enron scandal to punish someone who tampers with evidence or destroys it.
Jeffrey Greene, an attorney representing Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, argued the statute doesn’t apply to the case.
SUPREME COURT MAJORITY APPEARS LEERY OF BIDEN DOJ IN MAJOR JAN. 6 CASE
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Department of Justice and said the charges should remain.
The Washington Examiner exclusively spoke with Ed Tarpley, an attorney who filed one of the amicus briefs in the case.
“We believe that the DOJ took this statute and used it for a purpose for which it was not intended,” Tarpley said. “As to these defendants, it was misapplied, it was misused by the Department of Justice, or they could just strike the statute down completely. The justices will be focused on the possibility that this statute is unconstitutional if it’s so vague and so imprecise that a person can’t figure out what type of conduct it is that is prohibited.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
If justices decide to overturn this charge, it could alter hundreds of sentences, and it could also affect proceedings in special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump.
Tarpley said after analyzing the body language and questions of the justices during oral arguments, he’s optimistic about a favorable ruling. The justices are expected to make their decision sometime in June.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
