Washington, DC The criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump may be significantly impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision to accept appeals filed by those accused of crimes connected to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The decision to hear these cases is expected to be made on Friday.
Defendants Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller have three separate appeals set for consideration by the justices at their routine private conference to decide which new cases to take up.
The three men are attempting to have a case against them dismissed on the grounds that they interfered with an official procedure, namely the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s election win, which was interfered with by a group of Trump supporters.
In his federal election meddling case, Trump is accused with this violation in addition to others. Therefore, his case may be impacted by the court’s decision to accept or reject the appeals.
A lower court decision Supreme Court
that permitted the government to press charges against the defendants would stand if the court rejects the appeals.
However, if the justices decide to take up the cases, there would be a lengthy wait as they consider oral arguments and provide a decision at some point in the court’s current nine-month term, which ends in June. The nine-justice court must have four votes or more in order to consider a case.
The conservative Justice Clarence Thomas did not take part in the Supreme Court’s previous consideration of a case pertaining to January 6. John Eastman, a former Thomas legal clerk who gave Trump advice on January 6, was engaged in that case. In addition, Thomas’ spouse, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a conservative political activist, openly backed Trump’s attempts to rig the 2020 election.Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s participation may provide one avenue for Trump’s attorneys to postpone his trial for alleged election meddling, which is set to begin in March.
Trump “could credibly ask to delay his trial until the case is resolved,” according to Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and George Washington University Law School professor, should the court decide to hear the cases. The trial might still take place before the election, he said, with the court’s decision probably coming by the end of June in that case.
As the current front-runner in the Republican presidential contest polls, Trump stands to gain from any postponement of his criminal trial in Washington. Trump would be able to have the charges dropped if he were to win the election in November. Should the trial go as planned in March and Trump be found guilty, his punishment may be announced before the election.
The election meddling case is one of four criminal cases Trump is battling. It may also have an impact on other Jan. 6 defendants facing similar allegations. Jack Smith, the special attorney, presented two, while New York and Georgia brought the other two.Supreme Court
Trump said on his Truth Social platform three days after he was charged in the case of January 6 that the accusations against him amounted to election meddling and that “the Supreme Court must intervene.”
The only clause under consideration in the Supreme Court appeals is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) of the U.S. Code, which makes it illegal to attempt to “corruptly” hinder, influence, or impede any official activity. A conviction carries a maximum 20-year jail term. According to the Justice Department, hearings before Congress are included under the definition of “official proceeding.”
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a piece of legislation passed in the wake of the Enron accounting crisis, included the clause when it was introduced in 2002. Defendants argue that it was never meant to apply to an incidence like the one that happened on January 6.
Trump’s attorneys said that the indictment “applies a statute directed at the destruction of records in accounting fraud to disputing the outcome of a Presidential election” in their motion to dismiss the indictment in their federal election lawsuit. This goes beyond any logical connection to the wording of the statute.Supreme Court
Because Trump did not take part in the Capitol assault, the interpretation of the provision in his case may potentially give rise to concerns unrelated to those in the Supreme Court appeals.
Defense attorneys have argued in lower courts that the act has been construed too liberally and have questioned whether the term “corruptly” can be used in their cases since they believe it only relates to tampering with evidence and not, for instance, assaulting a police officer.Supreme Court
The first of multiple accusations that each of the three Jan. 6 suspects faces was first dropped by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who is in charge of their criminal proceedings.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found 2-1 in favor of the government in a decision from April. Each of the three judges had a different line of reasoning.
According to the authorities, Fischer, a former police officer, physically assaulted another officer and encouraged rioters to “charge” and “hold the line.” Fischer was only inside the Capitol for four minutes, according to his attorneys, and only did so after Congress had adjourned. Government prosecutors said that Fischer declared his intention to “go to war” and “take democratic [C]ongress to the gallows” in the event that Trump was not elected to a second term in power. He reportedly wrote, “Can’t vote if they can’t breathe… lol.”
According to Lang’s attorneys, their client “went to the Capitol to protest [and] was swept up in the violence of a crowd and the ensuing struggle with police officers, where he acted to defend himself and others from police violence,” according to court documents. In addition to several other violations, he is accused of assaulting a federal officer four times.
About January 6, Lang wrote, “1776 has commenced.”Supreme Court
He went on, “Give me liberty or give me death.” “THIS IS JUST THE START.”
Lang said that he wanted to be taken into custody. Since then, he has said that he is not sorry for what transpired on January 6 and that he asked Trump for assistance last year.
He added at the time, “We are rotting in jail because we stood up for what you told us to stand up for.”Supreme Court
Miller is charged with the same offenses as Fischer and Lang, including one count of assaulting an officer. Miller is accused of joining a group of rioters outside the Capitol and once again in the Capitol rotunda. Due in part to his detention on January 6 while sporting a “I was there” shirt and his social media threats against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a court sentenced him to 38 months in prison for his actions related to the Capitol riots, with the obstruction charge dismissed.
In court documents, the Justice Department said that because none of the defendants have yet to face trial for the obstruction allegation, it is too early to become involved, even if the Supreme Court is inclined to hear the appeals filed on January 6.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said, “The government is prepared to proceed to trial and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioners corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded the joint session on January 6, or attempted to do so.” She said that the definition of “corruptly” has been defined by an appeals court decision in a separate case that was won by the prosecution on January 6.Supreme Court
Thomas Robertson, a former Virginia police officer, was found guilty in August 2022 and given a sentence of more than seven years in jail. In addition, he had contested both his conviction and his sentence; nevertheless, in an October ruling, a panel of the federal appeals court maintained the conviction.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which now stands at 6-3, has expressed doubts in the past about the Justice Department’s expansive interpretation of criminal laws.
Most famously, in 2015, the court overturned a Florida fisherman’s conviction for violating another Sarbanes-Oxley legislation clause. The court determined that his disposal of red grouper fish during an inquiry did not fall within the purview of the law’s “anti-shredding” clause, which was designed to prohibit the destruction of evidence.
Source: NBC NEWS
