During a recent hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a significant question regarding the prosecution of January 6 defendants. She pondered whether prosecutors could build their case by demonstrating that the defendants were impeding the arrival of Electoral College vote certificates to the vice president's desk. This inquiry arose in response to concerns that the obstruction statute might have been misapplied by accusing the defendants of obstructing the congressional proceedings to certify the electoral vote count.
The discussion stemmed from Capitol riot defendant Joseph Fischer's attorney arguing that the obstruction statute was being improperly utilized in his client's case. The attorney contended that the statute typically pertains to altering, destroying, or mutilating evidence, rather than obstructing a congressional proceeding. In response to Barrett's query about whether the government could potentially prove that Fischer interfered with evidence by obstructing the certificates' delivery to the vice president's desk, Fischer's attorney acknowledged that this theory aligned more closely with his interpretation of the statute. However, he maintained that Fischer should only face charges if he tampered with documents in a manner that compromised their integrity.
