Jan. 6 attor­ney: Supreme Court rul­ing could be game chang­er for Trump and defen­dants

The Supreme Court heard oral argu­ments from an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing a Jan. 6 defen­dant regard­ing one charge some believe was tak­en out of con­text.
The charge “obstruct­ing an offi­cial pro­ceed­ing” sec­tion 18 U.S. Code § 1512 was cre­at­ed dur­ing the Enron scan­dal to pun­ish some­one who tam­pers with evi­dence or destroys it.
Jef­frey Greene, an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing Joseph Fis­ch­er, a for­mer Penn­syl­va­nia police offi­cer who entered the Capi­tol on Jan. 6, 2021, argued the statute doesn’t apply to the case.
SUPREME COURT MAJORITY APPEARS LEERY OF BIDEN DOJ IN MAJOR JAN. 6 CASE
U.S. Solic­i­tor Gen­er­al Eliz­a­beth Prel­og­ar argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Depart­ment of Jus­tice and said the charges should remain.

The Wash­ing­ton Exam­in­er exclu­sive­ly spoke with Ed Tarp­ley, an attor­ney who filed one of the ami­cus briefs in the case.
“We believe that the DOJ took this statute and used it for a pur­pose for which it was not intend­ed,” Tarp­ley said. “As to these defen­dants, it was mis­ap­plied, it was mis­used by the Depart­ment of Jus­tice, or they could just strike the statute down com­plete­ly. The jus­tices will be focused on the pos­si­bil­i­ty that this statute is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al if it’s so vague and so impre­cise that a per­son can’t …