The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a petition from a defendant on Jan. 6 that has the potential to affect hundreds, if not thousands, of cases.
The petition for a writ of certiorari, a type of appeal to the Supreme Court to review a lower court case, has been filed by a J6 defendant named Edward Lang. Lang claims he attended the protest at the Capitol on January 6 and was dragged into a riot, where he was forced to fend off violence. In the course of the riots, he assaulted a police officer, he said, to defend himself from harm.
As the petition states, the SCOTUS decision “will affect dozens, if not hundreds, of prosecutions stemming from the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots.” The legal filing argues the court should review the case “to rein in prosecutors” who are misapplying federal statutes in a “potentially dangerous way.”
“People who show up at protests seeking redress of grievances can feel at ease exercising their basic First Amendment rights,” the brief states. “If the protest turns violent, will they too be swept up in the events and accused of acting corruptly?”
Norman Pattis, Lang’s lawyer, criticized the government’s handling of the Jan. 6 cases, calling its misuse and abuse of the federal criminal code “shocking.”
“Without action by this Court, hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans will face substantial prison sentences for doing nothing more than speaking out in a protest that has turned into a dynamic conflict,” the petitioners argue. “It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the First Amendment hangs in the balance.”
Before his trial, Lang had filed a motion to dismiss the obstruction charge, which carries a 20-year prison sentence. The D.C. District Court initially granted the motion, but the decision was overturned by an appeals court. A subsequent motion for a new hearing was denied.
The appeal is based on Fifth Amendment grounds, which states that “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Lang has been detained for more than 900 days without judgment
He suggested his appeal could also affect potential Justice Department obstruction charges against former President Donald Trump. Lang noted the timing of his presentation, as Trump is currently a prominent figure within the Republican Party. While other charges against Trump could be resolved through a plea deal, a conviction on the congressional obstruction charge could have serious consequences for him.
At the heart of the case is the alleged misapplication of 18 US Code 1512(c)(2), which refers to obstruction of official proceedings, especially with a “corrupt purpose.” Prosecutors have argued that the “corrupt purpose” is a riot, allegedly at the behest of former President Donald Trump, with the goal of the president illegally maintaining power by stalling the Electoral College.
As the legal brief notes, prosecutors have offered no plausible explanation for how the rioters temporarily obstructing the counting of Electoral College votes would lead to Donald Trump retaining office. (Also, the Electoral College session was originally disrupted by bomb threats at RNC and DNC headquarters.)
Lang fought police officers at the Capitol for more than two hours, repeatedly striking officers with a bat and brandishing a stolen police shield. His 13-count indictment alleged that he assaulted six Metropolitan Police officers, caused bodily injury to one of them and engaged in disorderly conduct and physical violence with a bat and a shield in a restricted area of ​​the Capitol.
Lang’s motion to dismiss the obstruction charge was initially granted by the District Court, but the government appealed the decision and the Court of Appeals sided with the government in a split decision. A motion for a new hearing was denied and the warrant stayed on the obstruction count only. Lang is scheduled to go on trial in the fall on related charges.
The key issue in Lang’s petition is whether the prosecution’s reliance on the obstruction of official proceedings charge violates the prohibition against overbroad application of a statute. It is argued that the government’s use of this statute in the January 6 riot prosecutions represents a significant expansion of its scope, which runs counter to previous interpretations of the law. This broad interpretation has been criticized as politically motivated and a misuse of the criminal code.
The charges against Lang include assault on certain officers under 18 USC Section 111(a)(1), as well as misdemeanor charges of trespassing on the Capitol Grounds and engaging in disorderly and disorderly conduct. These charges carry lesser penalties compared to the obstruction charge.
In short, the government’s decision to indict Lang on a charge of obstruction of official proceedings is argued as an example of prosecutorial overreach. Concerns are raised about the chilling effect on public demonstration and free speech, as well as the broader implications for democracy in the United States.
“In the District of Columbia, prosecutors are now empowered to prosecute anyone who attends a public demonstration gone wrong; the result will be to create fear in those who would otherwise feel free to seek redress of grievances, assemble in public places and speak about public affairs,” the legal filing states. “It is this regime, and not a few hours of unrest in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, which is the most serious threat to democracy in the United States.”
“*” Indicates mandatory fields
OPINION: This article contains comments that reflect the opinion of the author.
English 
Español de Venezuela 