Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court possibly upends scores of Jan. 6 Capitol riot prosecutions, narrows obstruction charge
NY Post ^ | 06/28/2024 | Ryan King

Posted on 06/28/2024 8:29:34 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27

In a move that could upend scores of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot prosecutions, the Supreme Court on Friday narrowed the use of a charge of obstructing an official proceeding.

In a 6- 3 decision in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the conservative majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal dissenters, the high court concluded that prosecutors need to hang closer to the statutory langue of the obstruction charge used in a slew of Jan. 6 prosecutions.

“The Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

At issue was a technical reading of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act which stipulates that anyone who “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 otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” faces criminal liability.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: capitol; capitolriot; j6; jan6; jan6th; obstruction; prosecutions; riot; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Thoughts concerns?
1 posted on 06/28/2024 8:29:34 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Trump’s probably election, at this point in time, is causing the court to do what it was supposed to do because his first act will be to grant pardons to every J6R.


2 posted on 06/28/2024 8:32:14 AM PDT by Jonty30 (He hunted a mammoth for me, just because I said I was hungry. He is such a good friend. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27
It is a joke on the face of it they are trying to use the Sarbanes-Oxley law to procecute the J6ers.

It was written with the clear intent to deal with the high profile corporate accounting scandals at the time. Whether it should have been written in the first place is not the point but that mere fact that the government has to use this law as a justification to prosecute J6ers is a farce.

3 posted on 06/28/2024 8:35:32 AM PDT by frogjerk (More people have died trusting the government than not trusting the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

“At issue was a technical reading of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act which stipulates that anyone who “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 otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” faces criminal liability.”

Translation: A “Technical” reading means a literal reading of the actual words clearly written”.


4 posted on 06/28/2024 8:35:37 AM PDT by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Who wrote the dissent, was it Barrett?


5 posted on 06/28/2024 8:36:30 AM PDT by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

I think it means that many J6 convictions are now void. The court is saying that the wording of Sarbanes-Oxley refers to records and paperwork in impeding Government proceedings. But, let’s see if the DOJ is going to do the right thing and start discharging J6 prisoners.


6 posted on 06/28/2024 8:37:25 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

wonder what the jan 6th committee thinks of this. i thibk 1400 were arrested.


7 posted on 06/28/2024 8:37:54 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

This doesn’t exempt Congress members. The J6 Committee members should be charged criminally under this law for destroying records.

Seems to me that state elections boards which destroyed election records should also be charged criminally under this law.


8 posted on 06/28/2024 8:39:42 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

[[anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so,]]

Does pelosi ripping up the document she had after Trump’s speech count?


9 posted on 06/28/2024 8:43:12 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

defense attorneys need to file motions


10 posted on 06/28/2024 8:44:37 AM PDT by joshua c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

HOE many serious expensive lawsuits are waiting top be filed for wrongful prosecution & detainment????????????

YOU THINK THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS IN TROUBLE—

START DOING THIS POSSIBLE MATH.


11 posted on 06/28/2024 8:50:10 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (not giving up on TRUMP---EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Thousands of lives ruined, families bankrupted, jobs lost....

Let the lawsuits for damages begin.


12 posted on 06/28/2024 8:50:24 AM PDT by old curmudgeon (There is no situation so bad that the government can not make worse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

IT SHOULD


13 posted on 06/28/2024 8:50:43 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (not giving up on TRUMP---EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

If masses of Democrat protesters had been treated like the J6 people, and the convictions were overturned, the old saying is that the skies would be darkened by lawyers parachuting in to file lawsuits.


14 posted on 06/28/2024 8:54:29 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Someone has made ACB an offer she can’t refuse. She’s finished as an impartial Judge.


15 posted on 06/28/2024 8:56:18 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The J6 committee can burn in hell. Mercifully though, the DOJ can no longer use the wording of Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute people from the January 6 rally.


16 posted on 06/28/2024 8:58:27 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joshua c
"defense attorneys need to file motions"

Sadly true. This is being sent back to a lower court. It doesn't mean automatic discharge of those currently in custody. Hopefully it will bring a grinding halt to further attempts to use the wording of Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute anyone else.

17 posted on 06/28/2024 9:01:48 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Amy Phony Barrett. What a disaster she is becoming.


18 posted on 06/28/2024 9:03:27 AM PDT by usafa92 (Donald J. Trump, 45th and 47th President of the United States of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drypowder

We, the faithful, the loyal, and the hopeful, were burned once again. ACB has shown her true “conservative” bona fides.


19 posted on 06/28/2024 9:06:33 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

“”Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the conservative majority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal dissenters,””

What a flip-flop!!


20 posted on 06/28/2024 9:36:36 AM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson