Conservative Supreme Court justices seemed generally sympathetic on April 16 to a former police officer charged under an accounting reform law after he entered the U.S. Capitol for four minutes on Jan. 6, 2021.
The case is being closely watched because whenever the Supreme Court rules, its decision could have an impact on hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including the Jan. 6-related case against President Donald Trump.
Joseph Fischer, from Jonestown, Pennsylvania, was indicted on several counts following the Capitol breach on Jan. 6, including obstructing an official proceeding under Enron-era obstruction law 18 United States Code Section 1512(c). Convictions under the section can lead to 20 years in prison.
The wording of 1512(c) is focused on documentation and ensuring it is made available for official proceedings.
Section 1512(c) states: “Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The charge relates to the alleged obstruction of the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results, a proceeding that paved the way for the inauguration of President Joe Biden two weeks later.
Mr. Fischer argues that he should not have been charged under section 1512(c), an evidence-tampering provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street.
The legislation came in the wake of fraud-related scandals at Enron Corp. and other major corporations. Enron employed dubious accounting practices to conceal falling profits and exaggerate earnings, and its employees reportedly began destroying paperwork when they learned that indictments were in the works.
Some defendants who arrived at the Capitol after Congress was evacuated on Jan. 6 were also charged with obstructing an official proceeding. Several defendants have argued unsuccessfully at trial that they couldn’t have obstructed Congress because they weren’t present in the Capitol until after lawmakers left the complex. Mr. Fischer also says he left the complex before Congress attempted to move forward with certifying the election and was in Maryland at the time of the security breach.
Legal experts, including Mr. Fischer’s defense counsel, have criticized the Biden administration for prosecuting defendants, including former President Donald Trump, under the law, arguing it is an inappropriate vehicle for the prosecutions.
Lawyers argue the accounting reform law under which Mr. Fischer and others have been charged is being used by the Department of Justice to prosecute people who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the congressional certification of election results.
During oral arguments on April 16, Mr. Fischer’s attorney Jeffrey Green said the Biden administration was wrong to charge his client under 1512(c), which was intended to be used for evidence tampering only.
Congress passed the statute to prevent destruction of evidence, he said.
“The January 6 prosecutions demonstrate that there are a host of felony and misdemeanor crimes that cover the alleged conduct,” the lawyer said.
“A Sarbanes-Oxley based Enron-driven evidence tampering statute is not one of them.”
Until the Jan. 6 prosecutions, 1512(c) had never been used for anything other than evidence tampering, he said.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said 1512(c) is not a narrow legal provision.
The provision “by its terms is not limited to evidence impairment. Instead, it’s a classic catch-all” with regard to obstruction, she said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if pulling a fire alarm to halt a proceeding would subject the offender to a 20-year prison term.
Ms. Prelogar said it might but the government would have to have proof of criminal intent.
Justice Samuel Alito asked if protesters obstructing a trial would violate the statute.
“For all the protests that have occurred in this court, the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses, and I don’t think any one of those protesters has been sentenced to even one day in prison. But why isn’t that a violation of 1512(c)(2)?” he said.
Ms. Prelogar said “there would be the backstop of needing to prove corrupt intent.”
Justice Alito asked if protestors blocked roads and bridges around the nation’s capital, as they did on April 15 when pro-Palestinian protesters shut down the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, whether that would violate the statute.
Ms. Prelogar said she did not believe that would violate the statute.
She also said Mr. Fischer went to the Capitol intending to prevent Congress from conducting business.
“He had said in advance of January 6 that he was prepared to storm the Capitol [and was] prepared to use violence. He wanted to intimidate Congress. He said, ‘They can’t vote if they can’t breathe,’” she said.
At the Capitol, he allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer and that action impeded the ability of police to regain control and let Congress do its job, she continued.
“It is entirely appropriate for the government to seek to hold petitioner accountable for that conduct with that intent,” Ms. Prelogar said.
In a recent brief, Mr. Fischer’s attorneys denied he committed acts of violence on Jan. 6 and was actually a victim of violence. They said that he was knocked to the ground by a crowd surge and that, contrary to government claims that he was forcibly removed from the complex, he walked out on his own.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the protesters could have been charged under the section even if they had not breached the Capitol.
If they had remained outside “but their goal was to impede, chanting things like ‘stop the steal,’ getting too close, and ignoring police’s calls to disperse, would that still violate the statute?” the justice said.
Ms. Prelogar said if that had happened when Congress had to go into recess from a joint session because of a security risk, then it “probably would be chargeable if we had the intent evidence.”
This is a developing story. This article will be updated.
From The Epoch Times
