(Mark Pellin, Headline USA) In what could be an ultimate irony, a prior interpretation of case law by Joe Biden might help set the stage for obstruction of justice charges being dropped in hundreds of cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, protests at the U.S. Capitol.
It’s already led to one such case, when a federal judge this week dismissed an obstruction charge against defendant Garret Miller.
It was a ruling that legal experts contend could have widespread implications that impact hundreds of other J6 cases. In most, the obstruction charges carry the heaviest penalties, up to 20 years in prison, faced by defendants.
The charge of “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” appears 176 times in the Department of Justice’s list of Capitol Breach Cases, according to Axios.
U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, tossed the obstruction charge in Miller’s case, ruling that federal obstruction law was meant to be interpreted narrowly, and defendants can be charged with it only if they directly attempt to destroy “a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding,” the judge’s ruling reads.
“Miller, however, is not alleged to have taken such action,” Nichols wrote. “Nothing in Count Three (or the Indictment more generally) alleges, let alone implies, that Miller took some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence Congress’s certification of the electoral vote.”
Nichols based his ruling, in part, on an interpretation of obstruction law that Biden made in 2002, when it was passed following the Enron scandal.
“Then-Senator Joseph Biden referred to new subsection (c) as “making it a crime for document shredding,” something he thought the pending bill already did,” Nichols wrote in his ruling.
While J6 defendant Miller — who has been imprisoned since January 2021— still faces several charges, and other judges have ruled differently on an interpretation of obstruction, Miller’s attorney said the latest ruling was a huge win that could have a major impact for other pending cases.
“In charging Mr. Miller with violating this statute, the government obviously believed that the ends to be accomplished somehow justified charging him with a statute that was not applicable to his alleged conduct. Judge Nichols correctly decided otherwise,” attorney Clint Broden told Politico.
“This could result in a significant change as to how the government prosecutes the January 6 cases going forward.”
