NewsPoliticsTop StoryUS

Court, DOJ agree on Jan. 6 ‘obstruction’ charge

Appeals court upholds ‘obstruction’ charge used against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters, for now. A panel of appellate court judges upheld the use of the statute against Jan. 6 rioters, but the complex ruling means the issue likely isn’t settled yet. The Associated Press has the story:

Court, DOJ agree on Jan. 6 ‘obstruction’ charge

Newslooks- WASHINGTON (AP)

A federal appeals court sided Friday with the Justice Department in a case that could have upended hundreds of charges brought in the Capitol riot investigation.

A divided three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said a lower court judge was wrong in dismissing the obstruction of Congress offense after concluding that the rioters’ conduct wasn’t covered by the charge in three cases.

The decision, however, leaves open the possibility of further challenges to the charge, which has been brought in more than 300 cases in the Justice Department’s massive Jan. 6, 2021, prosecution. The defendants who brought the challenge may also ask the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

FILE – Violent insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump, storm the Capitol, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. A federal appeals court sided on Friday, April 7, 2023, with the Justice Department in a case that could have upended hundreds of charges brought in the Capitol riot investigation. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

The Justice Department has argued that the charge — punishing anyone who obstructs or impedes an “official proceeding” — clearly fits the conduct of the rioters who halted Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, an appointee of President Donald Trump, was the was the only lower court judge overseeing the Jan. 6 cases to dismiss the charge; every other judge who considered it said that it was correctly used.

Nichols found that the Justice Department stretched the law — which is part of a victim, witness, or informant tampering statute — beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in the these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record, or other object” in order to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

Read more U.S. news

Previous Article
In DeSantis’ Florida, Dems fight to be relevant
Next Article
Harris to meet with expelled Tenn. lawmakers

How useful was this article?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this article.

Latest News

Menu