Supreme Court might drop Jan. 6 obstruction charges. How it affects Sacramento defendants

Capitol rioters could obtain reduced prison sentences depending if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that federal prosecutors should not have charged defendants under a certain federal law in connection to disrupting the certification of 2020 election results.

Three Sacramento-area defendants have been convicted on the felony charge at the center of the arguments, obstructing an official proceeding.

One of the Sacramento-area rioters is also serving time for impeding police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of former President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol and forced Congress to evacuate and delay proceedings for about six hours.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, likely won’t release a decision until late June. But conservative justices on Tuesday seemed skeptical of the prosecutors’ use of the obstruction charge which, before being applied in Jan. 6 cases, was mainly used for tampering with business records.

More than 350 of the 1,387 Capitol riot defendants have been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

A ruling that says prosecutors used an overly broad interpretation of the statute could lead to new trials or lighter sentences for some defendants, including the three from the Sacramento area:

▪ Jorge Aaron Riley, who was among the first to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6, was sentenced in September 2023 to 18 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release. He pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding last year and did not appeal his conviction or sentence, in accordance with his plea agreement.

A federal judge also ordered him to pay a $100 fine and $2,000 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol. The Sacramento Army veteran has a release date in December, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

“However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Fischer, then Jorge’s conviction is invalid and we will ask the District Court in Washington to overturn it, which I expect he will do,” Tim Zandel, a longtime Sacramento defense attorney who represented Riley, wrote in an email to The Bee.

“Every defendant convicted of violating (this section of the federal law), including Jorge, is likely to benefit from a Supreme Court decision that the statute does not reach acts of Congress that are not related to investigations or evidence.”

“I continue to think that Jorge is a very good man who acted, consistent with his heart-felt beliefs, based on what he thought was best for the people of the U.S. He harmed nobody,” Zindel said. “He went to the Capitol as a protestor, encouraged to protest by then-President Trump.”

▪ Sean Michael McHugh, who used bear spray on police officers and encouraged rioters onward with a megaphone, was sentenced to 78 months — 6½ years — in prison, a federal judge decided in September 2023. McHugh, 37, will also have three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and $2,000 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol.

McHugh, a construction worker from Auburn, has a release date in December 2026, according to BOP.

He has appealed. The federal defender listed for his appeal did not respond to an email for comment on Monday.

McHugh was convicted in April 2023 of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon and obstruction of an official proceeding. He was held in custody since May 27, 2021, with some of that time served offsetting his prison sentence.

▪ Tommy Frederick Allan, who scaled the Capitol on a rope and stole an American flag and documents from the Senate chamber, was sentenced in December 2022 to 21 months in prison and three years probation. A federal judge also ordered him to pay a $100 fine and $2,000 to the Architect of the Capitol.

Allan, 56, is expected to be released from prison in June, according to BOP. He had pleaded guilty in August 2022 to obstructing an official proceeding and waived his right to appeal.

A federal defender for him didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

What is the law around obstructing an official proceeding?

The charge of obstructing an official proceeding became law through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that was written to target major U.S. accounting and corporate scandals.

The charge, which is under section 1512(c) of federal code, reads: “whoever corruptly — (1) 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 (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

This law was written in response to the “Enron scandal,” in which Enron’s auditing firm destroyed potentially incriminating documents about widespread fraud within the energy company. That statute carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

What is the case the Supreme Court heard?

The case, Fischer v. United States, got its start in March 2022 when a district court judge dismissed federal obstruction charges against three Jan. 6 defendants, including Joseph W. Fischer, a former police officer. Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, said the charge only applied if the defendant took action against “a document, record, or other object” to impede an official proceeding.

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, all appointed by Democratic presidents, in a 2-1 decision reversed the the district court’s opinion, saying the text broadened past the destruction of records. The defendants appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

A lawyer for Fischer argued the law narrowly applies to the destruction of records, documents or other objects. It does not apply to physically disrupting Congress, the attorney Jeffrey T. Green argued.

Meanwhile U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, on behalf of the government, said that the question and answer of this case was simple: “Did people obstruct an official proceeding?”

Yes, she said. Prelogar said that the legal team for the Jan. 6 defendants was trying to limit the scope of the statute to evidence tampering by combining two adjacent parts of it.

The outcome could have broad ramifications. Some judges have delayed sentencing Jan. 6 defendants until after the Supreme Court issues a ruling. And, if the court sides with Fischer, the ruling could erase two charges against Trump in the federal case that accuses him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether Trump is immune from criminal charges related to the 2020 election because he was president at the time.

Trump has embraced supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, writing on Truth Social last month that one of his first acts if re-elected would be to “Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned!”