Published on July 16, 2024, 12:44 am

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is strategizing ways to maintain charges against defendants from the events of January 6, following a substantial setback delivered by the Supreme Court. The court ruling on June 28 limited an obstruction statute that had been employed to charge numerous January 6 defendants.

In response to this setback, Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the DOJ will persevere in employing all feasible methods to hold those accountable who were criminally involved in the attack on our democracy on January 6.

Following this announcement, the DOJ has embarked on initial actions aimed at sustaining its charges. These include requesting judges for further time to analyze the implications of the court ruling while emphasizing that the Supreme Court did not wholly reject its employment of the statute.

Section 1512(c)(2) comprises this crucial statute, which penalizes anyone up to 20 years in prison for obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding. However, in Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that for an individual to be charged under this law, it is necessary to demonstrate they interfered with or compromised elements used in an official proceeding.

There have been over 355 individuals involved in the January 6 incident charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding an official proceeding according to information provided by DOJ. One viewpoint expressed by criminal defense attorney David W. Fischer suggests DOJ’s dissatisfaction with how things unfolded regarding Fischer’s decision and how it plans its future strategies accordingly.

Highlighted scenarios indicate possible cases where DOJ might attempt recharging cycles using corrective indictment languages claiming specific defendants targeted voting boxes or paperwork utilized by Congress during Jan.6 accreditation process. Yet such adroitly worded accusations won’t alter strong established evidence indicating none among Jan.6 lawbreakers were actually aiming at institutional evidence.

On ongoing cases now under review post-ruling by Supreme Court, there has been noticeable demand from DOJ side asking for more time to assess how judgment would apply. This is evident from DOJ’s approach in recent cases such as that of defendant Tara Stottlemyer, whose conduct they believe, may very much meet the revised standard for the statute.

Prosecutors reference Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion suggesting that Fischer’s alleged activities involved impairing or attempting the impairment of items during January 6 proceedings, which fits into prosecution under §1512(c)(2).

A decisive victory derived by defendants through Fischer’s case is frustratingly delayed for Tara along with other Jan.6 defenders as DOJ explores recalibrations inducing procedural hold-ups mentions William Shipley, a criminal defense attorney representing Stottlemyer.

Despite these delays, several defendants have already been granted an early release before the Supreme Court even issued its ruling. The notable list includes Kevin Seefried, Alexander Sheppard, and Thomas B. Adams Jr.

In syndicated real news updates focused on events post-Supreme Court rulings, we observe active maneuvers by DOJ to retain charges predominantly through assessments and tactical delays but victims are slowly finding respite. Garland remains confident that most among over 1,400 charged will not be affected by this decision.

To stay abreast with trusted news updates from a Christian worldview on real-time happenings surrounding situation evolving after January 6 incidents and related legal developments at highest judiciary level like this article presents – follow our platform regularly.