NATION: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision that has been perceived as diminishing the Capitol insurrection to a lesser crime revolves around the interpretation of the obstruction of an official proceeding charge.
By Anne Erbynstein & Malik Anderson
The court ruled that for a conviction under this charge, there must be proof that the defendant attempted to tamper with and destroy documents and other objects used in an official proceeding making it harder for the Supreme Court to charge Capitol offenders with obstruction.
This interpretation narrows the scope of the obstruction charge, which had been used in hundreds of cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The decision, specifically in the case of the attack on the US Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the broad application of the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge, which had been a common charge against many of the January 6 defendants
The Supreme Court's ruling means that convictions based solely on this charge are now invalid, and it could affect the ongoing prosecutions and past convictions of nearly 250 defendants charged with obstruction for their participation in the Capitol assault
The legal standard set by this ruling requires a more direct and tangible interference with an official proceeding, such as the destruction of evidence, rather than a broader interpretation of obstruction that could include actions like trespassing or unlawful entry .
This decision has significant implications for the legal characterization of the events of January 6 and the charges against those involved.
Comments