The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to delay hearing a case involving the January 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol Building to hear oral arguments regarding a charge of obstructing an official proceeding.
“Over govt opposition, Judge Mehta puts off Oath Keeper Tom Caldwell’s long-postponed sentencing yet again—this time because SCOTUS reviewed ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ felony. …,” Roger Parloff of LawFare posted on the X platform, according to Newsweek.
“Govt may also come to rue this paragraph from its opposition papers, admitting that sentencings of Caldwell’s codefendant Oath Keepers were “heavily influenced” by their convictions of the same offense (18 USC 1512c2) now under review by SCOTUS,” he noted in a second post.
The nation’s highest court previously confirmed it will hear oral arguments for an appeal regarding the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge has been utilized in various cases related to the Capitol riot, including the federal indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump.
The appeal in question is the Fischer v. United States case, where riot defendant Joseph Fischer challenged the obstruction of an official proceeding charge.
“A ruling against the government in the Fischer case in the Supreme Court could well have a ripple effect in many other Capitol riot cases where the defendants were charged with the same obstruction of justice provision, went to trial [as opposed to pleading guilty], and were convicted,” former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe previously told the news outlet.
“A Supreme Court decision culling the obstruction of justice statute could also impact the criminal case against Donald Trump in the US district court in DC, but it’s less clear when and how at this juncture,” he added.
Newsweek noted further: Many members of the Oath Keepers far-right group were convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection to the riot. Caldwell was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but was found guilty of several other felony charges. This month, Parloff posted on X that Caldwell requested that his sentencing hearing be delayed until after the Supreme Court hears oral arguments for the appeal. According to the Associated Press, the court is likely to hear arguments in March or April.
“Because Fischer could potentially upend hundreds of cases, including Trump’s, legal experts said the SCOTUS announcement could give Trump’s team further reason to delay the trial, which is scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024,” Newsweek reported earlier this week.
Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade explained to Newsweek that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Fischer’s case doesn’t necessarily delay Trump’s case. However, Smith may consider pushing the trial date until after the justices rule to determine the validity of the two counts of obstruction against Trump.
“Even though he has two other counts in the indictment, convictions on the obstruction counts could jeopardize the whole case on appeal if a court were later to find that the jury may have relied on evidence of the obstruction in reaching its decision,” McQuade told the outlet. “Other options are to drop the obstruction counts now and proceed on the other two counts, or take his chances with all four counts and move forward.”
Legal commentator Randall Eliason agreed with McQuade and told Newsweek that there is a “good chance” that the Fischer case will lead to a delay in the March 4 trial date.
“Both the judge and the parties will likely want to see what the Supreme Court has to say before going to trial, or at the very least before instructing the jury,” he told the outlet.
In his Sunday newsletter, Eliason suggested that Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing Trump’s federal election interference case, might prefer not to take the case to trial without first hearing the Supreme Court’s decision on the charge constituting half of Trump’s indictment.
Eliason proposed that Chutkan could attempt to start the trial in mid-May, anticipating the justices’ decision on Fischer before providing jury instructions. Even if the trial begins in July, a verdict could still be reached before the 2024 election.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
