A federal appeals court decided on Friday that members of the mob who stormed the U.S. Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, may be charged under a felony rule that makes it illegal to impede government actions.
The ruling gives prosecutors more authority in the hundreds of charges they are pursuing against those involved in the Capitol Hill riot, while also endorsing a legal interpretation that both judges and legislators have claimed extends to former president Donald Trump.
A further 150 persons are still awaiting trial after being charged with obstruction for their involvement in the violence on January 6. Five prominent Proud Boys members, including the organization’s former head, are presently on trial for obstruction of Congress and other offenses.
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 21: The rising sunlight strikes the East Front of the U.S. Capitol on March 21, 2022 in Washington, DC. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s pick to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court, will begin four days of nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Capitol Hill Riot: Appeals Court Ruling Places Felony Cases in Limbo
The three defendants whose cases were before the court were all also accused of attacking police, according to Judge Florence Pan, who authored the majority judgment, therefore it was inappropriate to decide on that broad subject at that time.
Politico added that there is no doubt that individuals who attacked police officers during the Capitol Hill riot that day did so with “corrupt intent.” Determining “corrupt intent” is considerably harder to figure out in obstruction instances from the Jan. 6 that don’t include violence, she added.
The persisting problem has very high stakes. Several of the more than 300 detainees charged with disrupting Congress’ work on January 6 are not also accused of attacking police during the Capitol Hill riot. The Justice Department has sometimes used the obstruction allegation, which carries a possible 20-year term, as leverage in plea discussions with rioters who charged into the most delicate areas of the Capitol.
READ ALSO: Trump Indictment: See What Officials Warned Vs. Ex-President
Obstruction Charge Constitutional, Court Says
After a federal court in California’s determination that President Trump “likely” engaged in obstruction, The Washington Post noted that the select committee from January 6 requested the Justice Department to also prosecute Trump with this specific offense related to the Capitol Hill riot. Any decision that reduces the scope of what constitutes “corrupt intent” might eliminate such a prosecution.
In accordance with the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, it is illegal to “corruptly— (1) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document, or other object, or attempt to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding, or attempt to do so.”
Never before has the law been employed in a criminal or civil inquiry outside of the context of the evidence. But, the government and 14 of the judges presiding over riot-related cases in the federal court in Washington, D.C., concluded that protesters who opposed Congress’ certification of Biden’s win were “otherwise” blocking the process. One, Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointment, decided that “otherwise” could only relate to other types of document tampering, setting up the controversy that was settled on Friday.
READ ALSO: Post-Arrest Speech: Donald Trump Rip Up All The Investigations He Faces
