Federal Judges have and are releasing many in jail sentenced under the "obstruction law", they also are delaying future prosecution of such cases until the Supreme Court ruling expected in June 2024
The Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring on whether prosecutors have stretched the meaning of the federal obstruction law. A decision will follow by June. But already, the high court’s decision to scrutinize the law has begun rippling through dozens of felony riot cases and threatens to upend even more.
Last week, for example, a federal judge sprung a Jan. 6 defendant from jail five months into his sentence, citing the justices’ consideration of the statute.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta released defendant Thomas Adams, who had been convicted of obstruction and related misdemeanors. Mehta noted that Adams would likely have received a significantly shorter sentence without the obstruction charge and therefore should be freed until the justices rule on the validity of the charge.
Prosecutors urged Adams be kept in jail, but Mehta disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case suggests the outcome is, at minimum, a “close question.”
U.S. District Judge John Bates the next day similarly ordered the release of another defendant, Alexander Sheppard, when his misdemeanor sentence expires, until the resolution of the Supreme Court case.
Three other federal judges — Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and colleagues Richard Leon and Dabney Friedrich — have postponed pending Jan. 6 cases in which obstruction is the only felony charge.
More than 30 Jan. 6 defendants have similarly asked to delay their trials, sentences or prison report dates.
The Justice Department has already agreed to pause appeals related to the obstruction issue. In a slew of filings, prosecutors said the outcome of those appeals could “plainly” be affected by the high court’s ruling.
The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.
“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”
Politico
Obstruction statute under review
1-18-2024The Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring on whether prosecutors have stretched the meaning of the federal obstruction law. A decision will follow by June. But already, the high court’s decision to scrutinize the law has begun rippling through dozens of felony riot cases and threatens to upend even more.
Last week, for example, a federal judge sprung a Jan. 6 defendant from jail five months into his sentence, citing the justices’ consideration of the statute.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta released defendant Thomas Adams, who had been convicted of obstruction and related misdemeanors. Mehta noted that Adams would likely have received a significantly shorter sentence without the obstruction charge and therefore should be freed until the justices rule on the validity of the charge.
Prosecutors urged Adams be kept in jail, but Mehta disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case suggests the outcome is, at minimum, a “close question.”
U.S. District Judge John Bates the next day similarly ordered the release of another defendant, Alexander Sheppard, when his misdemeanor sentence expires, until the resolution of the Supreme Court case.
Three other federal judges — Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and colleagues Richard Leon and Dabney Friedrich — have postponed pending Jan. 6 cases in which obstruction is the only felony charge.
More than 30 Jan. 6 defendants have similarly asked to delay their trials, sentences or prison report dates.
The Justice Department has already agreed to pause appeals related to the obstruction issue. In a slew of filings, prosecutors said the outcome of those appeals could “plainly” be affected by the high court’s ruling.
Wide prosecutorial net
1-18-2024The former prosecutor who oversaw the initial response to the Capitol Riot in early 2021, Michael Sherwin, said he had rejected many potential trespass cases at the outset of the investigation because suspects did not engage in violence, property damage or pushing over barricades.
“That changed when I left. I don’t know who authorized it, but I refused,” Sherwin said in an interview. “I had a bright-line rule … that people should not have been charged if they just walked in through an open door.”
Last edited:
