A Wrench in the January 6 Trials: The Case of Fischer v U.S.
Every American is well familiar with the date of January 6, 2021. The legal and factual analysis of the incident and aftermath have been covered extensively, and you can look to our blogs for more information about the charges against Trump and his associates for things like the disqualification argument for Trump to run in 2024, and our legal resources pages for more about laws related to insurrection and rebellion.
But that was over four years ago, so why are we still talking about it? Well, our government is still in the process of trying to hold the right people accountable. Part of that process includes novel issues regarding criminal charges. Now, the Supreme Court is grappling with a case with far-reaching consequences for the January 6th Capitol attack: Fischer v. United States. Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who participated in the riot, is challenging his conviction for obstructing an official proceeding.
The outcome of this case could make or break a legal defense. Not just Fischer himself but the other rioters as well. And, as you may have already heard in coverage of the case, Donald Trump.
A Seemingly Endless Investigation
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been using various methods to identify participants, including reviewing video footage, analyzing photographs, and following up on tips from the public. As a result, hundreds of individuals have been charged with crimes related to the Capitol riot, ranging from unlawful entry and disorderly conduct to more serious charges like assault on law enforcement officers and conspiracy. Still, the number of people charged is a fraction of those who were present, and investigations are ongoing.
Why is it taking so long? There are many reasons. The fact that it involved a large number of individuals complicates sorting through the evidence, identifying people, and processing charges for each person. Doing so, even just for the fraction of people charged, is a massive undertaking that takes time. There was also a delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and our legal system only has so many resources.
Another reason is a potential legal defense that could get the case thrown out before it goes to trial. Specifically, in criminal cases like those of the rioters, the person charged can file a motion to dismiss the indictment before trial if the government can’t point to a law on the books that makes the charged action illegal. This tactic is a wrench that the attorneys of one of the Capitol riot defendants has thrown the prosecution.
Fischer’s Case
On January 6, rioters swarmed the building and overwhelmed law enforcement officers who attempted to stop them. Their aggressive actions forced members of Congress to stop the certification of Joe Biden as president. It was the reason Congress convened, and stopping it was the intention of the people who broke into the Capitol. After fleeing to safety, the Congresspeople were not able to resume work for six hours.
Federal prosecutors accused Joseph Fischer of encouraging rioters to “charge” and “hold the line,” pushing the police, and engaging in a “physical encounter” with at least one law enforcement officer.
The criminal complaint alleges that Fischer sent several different text messages leading up to January 6, egging Trump supporters to take action (e.g., “If Trump don’t get in we better get to war” and “I might need you to post my bail. . . . It might get violent”). He was charged with seven different counts, including assaulting both Capitol Police and MPD officers.
The feds charged Fischer under various federal statutes, but the Supreme Court case is focused on the charges under the Victim and Witness Protection Act. Fischer wasn’t the only Capitol riot defendant charged under this statute; others in his mob, including Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, were similarly charged in separate cases along with various other offenses. These men and others were charged under this Act with counts of “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding.” This was because, among other things, the riot forced a suspension of congressional counting of presidential electors’ ballots—something that is required both under federal statute and under the U.S. Constitution.
The Victim and Witness Protection Act
The crux of the Fischer case hinges on the interpretation of a federal law called the Victim and Witness Protection Act. Congress enacted this in response to the recognized problem of witness intimidation.
Witnesses are crucial for investigations and prosecutions. If witnesses fear retaliation or intimidation, they may be less likely to come forward or may be pressured to alter their testimony. This can obstruct justice and make it harder to hold criminals accountable. Tampering with witnesses can lead to false or misleading information being presented in court.
The Act discourages such actions and helps ensure the integrity of the legal process. By offering protection to witnesses, victims, and informants, this law aims to create a climate where people feel safe reporting crimes or violations. This can be particularly important in cases involving organized crime or powerful individuals.
The law's specific language reflects Congress's intent to create a broad shield for those involved in providing information to law enforcement or the courts. It covers various tactics used to silence or manipulate witnesses, ensuring a fairer and more effective justice system.
Section (c) of that statute makes it a crime to try to tamper with a witness, victim, or informant in certain federal cases. Specifically, it prohibits actions meant to intimidate or bribe someone into not providing information by lying or remaining silent. It prohibits retaliating against someone for providing information. It also applies to stopping someone from reporting a federal crime or a violation of probation, parole, or release conditions to a law enforcement officer or judge.
A Battle Over Statutory Interpretation
The part of the Act most relevant to the Fischer case is the one regarding preventing someone from communicating information about a federal offense, found at 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). This law criminalizes efforts to "corruptly" obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. Since the federal government is trying to hold people like Fischer accountable, they must be able to convince the court that the statute under which they are prosecuting him is intended to cover his scenario.
Fischer is trying to argue that this law only applies to tampering with evidence or witnesses, not physically disrupting a government process like the certification of election results.
The government argued that since Fischer’s actions disrupted Congress, this clearly fit under the meaning of “obstruction,” and the statute covered his actions. Fischer's attorneys argue that the intended purpose of the Act was narrower — that its language intended to cover the act of manipulating evidence rather than physical disruption.
In other words, the government and defense attorneys are having a pre-trial argument over what types of actions the Act makes illegal. They turned to federal court to answer the question: if you assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot, can you be charged with “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding” under the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)?
There was some back and forth at the lower federal courts. The district court held that the statute does not apply to “assaultive conduct” (what Fischer was doing) committed in furtherance of an attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. When the case went to the D.C. Circuit, they disagreed and reversed. Now, it’s up before SCOTUS.
The Final Say
SCOTUS heard oral arguments on the case on April 16. During that time, they predictably grappled with construing the correct interpretation of the statute and the definition of “obstruction” that the law intended.
The outcome of this case is important in many ways. If SCOTUS rules that the Act does not cover Fischer’s actions, then his charges under that statute have to be thrown out. If the ruling is narrow, then it might be limited to influencing only the outcome for Fischer himself.
A broader ruling by SCOTUS could have a much wider-reaching impact. Remember, it’s not just Fischer who was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512; many other rioters and Donald Trump were, as well. A ruling in favor of Fischer's might well weaken the government’s case against hundreds of other defendants from the Capitol attack and the former president.
Related Resources
- Does the Insurrection Act Need an Update? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Rioting and Inciting to Riot (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- The Trump Inquiries, in a Nutshell (FindLaw’s Courtside)