Protesters surround the Capitol after a rally at which then-President Donald Trump spoke, in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021.JASON ANDREW/The New York Times News Service
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday that federal prosecutors erred in how they charged a man for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol began to take effect on some of the 249 people convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.
A federal judge shortly after the ruling ordered the re-sentencing of one man found guilty of that offense, which Donald Trump also faces.
The court found that the Justice Department improperly used a law passed in the wake of energy firm Enron Corp’s collapse when it charged defendant Joseph Fischer with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding – the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over Trump.
Here’s a look at other Capitol riot cases that could be revisited following the court’s ruling:
THREE PERCENTERS ASSOCIATE GUY REFFITT
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered the Justice Department and defence lawyers for Jan. 6 rioter Guy Reffitt on Friday to prepare for a re-sentencing.
Reffitt, an associate of the far-right Three Percenters, was the first Jan. 6 defendant to go to trial.
He was convicted by a jury of five felonies including the obstruction of an official proceeding, and sentenced to seven years and three months.
He never entered the Capitol during the riot, but video evidence showed him egging on the crowd and leading other rioters up a set of stairs outside the building.
OATH KEEPERS AND PROUD BOYS LEADERS
Two of the Justice Department’s most prominent Jan. 6 cases took aim at leaders from the far-right Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.
In separate trials, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys former chairman Enrique Tarrio, along with their co-conspirators, were convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.
Rhodes and Tarrio, as well as some of their co-defendants, were also convicted on other serious felonies such as seditious conspiracy, a Civil War-era law.
In cases like this involving multiple felony convictions, legal experts said they do not believe the ruling will lead to drastic changes.
Although the defendants could ask the judges to vacate the obstruction charge and re-sentence them, having convictions on other felonies might not materially change their prison terms.
“I think the U.S. Attorney’s office has done a good job of not putting all their eggs in one basket,” said Nick Smith, a defence attorney for Proud Boys leader Ethan Nordean.
One of the first tests of how the ruling could affect defendants in the Oath Keepers case could come as soon as July 26, when Thomas Caldwell will be sentenced.
Caldwell, who was tried alongside Rhodes and several other Oath Keeper defendants, was acquitted on all but two felonies -obstructing the congressional certification and tampering with evidence, after he deleted 11 photographs later recovered by the FBI.
If one of his two convictions is vacated, it could have a substantial impact on sentencing, his lawyer said.
THE ’Q-ANON SHAMAN’
Jacob Chansley, also known as the QAnon Shaman, became known as the face of the Jan. 6 attack after he entered the Capitol wearing face paint and a furry horned hat.
He is among a group of defendants who pleaded guilty to just one count of obstructing an official proceeding. In exchange, prosecutors dropped the remaining charges, including a felony count of civil disorder and other misdemeanours.
He was sentenced to 41 months in prison but was released early.
Defendants including Chansley who pleaded guilty solely to obstructing an official proceeding could seek to vacate their sentences, though the Justice Department could then seek to reinstate the other charges that were dropped as part of the plea agreement.
“It’s not necessarily a get-out-of-jail free card,” said defence attorney Richard Willstatter.
DONALD TRUMP
The most high-profile defendant facing charges of obstructing an official proceeding is former President Trump.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump in Washington for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In that case, Trump faces four felony counts, two of which involve the obstruction of an official proceeding.
But some legal experts say that regardless of the court’s ruling, prosecutors still have strong arguments they can use to keep the obstruction charges against Trump alive – namely, that Trump was involved in a conspiracy to obstruct the congressional certification of votes by getting phony ballots introduced from slates of “fake” electors.
“In Trump’s case that will be a real option,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor.