It's unclear how the ruling will benefit retired Air Force Lt. Col. Larry R. Bullock Jr. or the other January 6 defendants. The enhancements widen the range of proposed sentences that judges must consider. Judges in Washington, D.C., typically sentence sentences below these guidelines and regularly make it clear that the punishment will be the same if not enhanced.
The ruling could affect plea deals, eliminating one of the bargaining chips prosecutors use to encourage defendants to plead guilty without a trial.
If the Supreme Court were to strike down or reduce the application of obstruction, all of these cases would need to be reconsidered anew. The sentencing guidelines controversy is not too disruptive, but three years after the riots, prosecutors and courts have an even greater workload as they process the second half of the 1,300-count indictment.
Bullock, who gained notoriety after being photographed wearing an army green helmet and vest on the Senate floor, was sentenced to two years in prison for obstruction of Congress. He is currently scheduled to be released in December.
Obstruction of Congress is one of four felonies President Trump is charged with in D.C. federal court. He is also charged with conspiracy to commit that crime.
The Court of Appeals had already ruled that “obstruction of an official proceeding” did not apply only to destruction of evidence, as many of the defendants argued on January 6th. Although the crime was created in response to an attempt to cover up a financial scandal, the court said blocking Congress from certifying the presidential election also qualifies. The decision will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16, but the justices disagree on one element of the crime: what constitutes “cheating.”
Like Trump, Bullock did not commit violence on January 6th. And like Mr. Trump, he insisted, he truly believes the election was stolen.
“Mr. Bullock believed he was acting in the right, patriotic and with a very proper purpose,” attorney Charles Burnham said during oral argument in September.
The justices, all appointed by Democrats, said they didn't need to know that Mr. Bullock committed the violent act or that Mr. Trump could no longer understand the wrongness of his actions. It was enough for him to know that what he was doing was illegal and that it could involve violence.
“Defendant Bullock participated in an insurrection aimed at overturning the 2020 presidential election by force, and was prepared to use violence to achieve that goal,” the judges wrote. Based on social media posts before the riot, they said: “If a defendant expresses an intention to use violence to disrupt a parliamentary proceeding, prepares to use violence, and then actually disrupts that proceeding, the evidence supports a finding that he obstructed a parliamentary proceeding. “is an impermissible purpose, or knowledge of the unlawfulness of his act.” ”
But they agreed that Mr. Bullock should not have been punished for “gross interference with the administration of justice,” and that the sentencing enhancement was somehow obstructing the legal process and that the Capitol Hill He said the crime was not committed. Mr. Bullock will be indignant going forward, but that does not mean he will receive a lesser sentence.
The D.C. Circuit panel said in its decision that even if the Supreme Court ruled that the law required evidence to be destroyed, “participation in the January 6 riot could have caused Congress to be recessed.” The law could also apply to rioters, he said. [an] “Evidential Process” – 2020 Election Vote Verification.
The Supreme Court's decision on obstruction charges not only affects hundreds of cases to be heard on January 6, but also becomes one of four criminal trials facing Republican presidential nominee Trump. may have an impact. President Trump is accused of obstructing Congress on January 6, with prosecutors saying his actions led a mob to the Capitol, demanding the counting of “fake electors,” and attacking Deputy Mike Pence. They point out that they pressured the president to recognize fake electors as legitimate. Trump's lawyers say that, like Bullock, the former president believes the 2020 election was stolen and there was no criminal intent.
Prosecutors in Special Counsel Jack Smith's office have highlighted multiple instances in which Trump was told he had lost and appeared to acknowledge that fact. During oral arguments in an earlier obstruction case in circuit court, one defense lawyer suggested that his client had been honest about his beliefs, but that Mr. Trump probably wasn't.
But during oral arguments in Block's case, several justices emphasized that defendants can believe they are morally right and know their actions are illegal.
“Let's say someone participates in an election for state judge, and the candidate thinks she won, but she's not recognized as the winner,” said Justice Cornelia Pillard. “What gives her the privilege to rally mobs, disrupt court proceedings, and invade courtrooms because she believes in her heart that she is being treated unfairly?” Do you want it?”
When Burnham pointed out that the same could be true for civil rights protesters, Pillard said “the power of civil disobedience” is the willingness to be punished.
She says such protesters think, “I'm breaking the law, but I'm responding to a higher law, so I'm ready to accept the consequences.'' “And in my opinion, the higher laws are more important, to the point where we are even willing to sacrifice ourselves. But…sacrifice means that the laws cannot be bent and adapted to one's personal moral principles. Don’t do it.”
In Bullock's case, he claimed an “insurrection” on social media before January 6, saying, “This battle cannot be won democratically.” His “plan of attack” was to “detain” government officials who opposed Trump and then “begin interrogating them using the same tools we used against al-Qaeda.” He advised “do not kill law enforcement officers unless necessary” and expected “amnesty for all crimes, including murder.”
In 2002, the “Obstruction of Official Business” Act was passed to close the loophole exposed in the Enron scandal. Telecom accountants could be charged with “fraudulent persuasion” to destroy evidence, but not for shredding their own documents. The crime carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and punishes anyone who “unauthorizedly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record…for use in an official proceeding.” or “interfere with, influence or impede any other official proceeding or attempt thereof.”
The incident that led to the felony charge did not pass judicial review. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a guilty verdict against accounting firm Arthur Andersen, saying jurors were not properly informed that corrupt persuasion must be accompanied by “awareness of wrongdoing.” .
Several of the defendants on January 6th did not believe their actions were wrong, even though the Capitol attack was subject to obstruction charges. He insists that he is not “corrupt.” Pillard and the other justices acknowledged they disagreed about that part of the law and the line between illegal demonstration and felony obstruction.
Judge Patricia Millett said during oral argument: “What I'm concerned about is… what does this word 'corrupt' mean and how do we respond to that?” “I'm having a hard time finding out, at least to understand specifically what that 'unjust' standard is.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Hansford responded that corrupt intent would not be an issue because a brief public protest during a Congressional hearing, for example, would not rise to the level of filibustering. The government has charged most people with misdemeanors for simply entering and loitering in the Capitol, entering sensitive areas of the building, fighting police, and rallying others to prevent vote counting. Felony charges were reserved for aggravated acts such as
In an upcoming case the Supreme Court will consider, Justice Florence Y. Pan said any definition of corruption could apply to the Jan. 6 case, while Justice Justin Walker said corruption can include ” He argued that it was necessary to seek “illegal gain.” He said the benefits could help President Trump stay in power.
During oral argument in Block's case, Burnham said that's not the case because he believes veterans are performing a “public service” by helping expose wrongdoing.
“I'm not going to benefit from Donald Trump because I want him to be happy,” he said. “The profits will be for the benefit of the country.”
