OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A federal judge has released a man sentenced to three years behind bars concerning actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building after the Supreme Court took up a case that could have affected his sentence and that of hundreds of others.
Kevin Seefried, a resident of Laurel, Del., was handed a felony conviction of obstructing an official proceeding. Furthermore, Seefried received a 12-month and 6-month sentence for misdemeanor charges.
According to the Department of Justice, Seefried and his son Hunter were among the first people to enter the Capitol during the January 6th insurrection. They were also photographed carrying a Confederate flag while inside.
According to Newsweek, the obstruction charge is at the center of the case that the nation’s highest court has taken up.
The case is Fischer v. United States, and it contests the DOJ’s application of the charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding”. This charge has been used against the January 6 defendants for supposedly interfering with the certification of the Electoral College. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the arguments in the case, some defendants have requested their release until the final ruling.
On Tuesday, Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that Seefried could be released from his prison sentence while awaiting the high court’s decision.
As per court documents, McFadden concluded that Seefried does not present a risk of fleeing or endangering his community. Furthermore, the appeal raised substantial questions likely to lead to a reversal, a new trial, a noncustodial sentence, or a custodial sentence that would have expired by the time the appeal concludes, and that it was not “for delay and raises a substantial question.”
He noted further that at least four Supreme Court justices have shown interest in addressing the challenge to the DOJ’s use of obstruction charges. He added that if the court rules in Fischer’s favor, “it will almost certainly mean that Seefried’s analogous conduct” did not constitute a violation of the obstruction law.
“In that case, Seefried will be left serving only his sentences for the four misdemeanor convictions. But, by the time his appeal has concluded, those custodial sentences will have likely concluded,” he wrote.
McFadden also wrote that Seefried’s sentence for his misdemeanor charges would be over by May 31, 2024, and that he should, therefore, be released on or around that date, ruling that “one-year sentence is likely adequate.”
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear former President Donald Trump’s case regarding presidential immunity. The high court announced that it would hear oral arguments on April 25 and render a decision by June.
Trump’s team will argue that he is immune from prosecution in a case filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., on allegations of election interference.
That criminal trial, filed in U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court, has been put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
In requesting the review, Trump’s team argued in court documents that “if the prosecution of a President is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination.”
“Criminal prosecution, with its greater stigma and more severe penalties, imposes a far greater ‘personal vulnerability’ on the President than any civil penalty,” the request continues, according to Fox News. “The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow every future President’s official acts — especially the most politically controversial decisions.”
Trump’s request also says that the president’s “political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via effective extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile Administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution.”
