A federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether the obstruction of an official proceeding charge that has been levied against at least 235 defendants in Capitol riot cases is unconstitutionally vague.
During a lengthy hearing Wednesday for the conspiracy case involving 18 members of the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia asked about the determinations prosecutors used to file a felony charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress.
“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’?” Mehta said, according to The Washington Post.
“And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’?”
Defense attorneys, including David W. Fischer, who is representing co-defendant Thomas Edward Caldwell, have argued that the felony charge was not being properly applied to the case, claiming that the congressional certification of Electoral College votes did not meet the definition of an “official proceeding.”
The felony charge, which has been brought against Capitol riot defendants in addition to other misdemeanor offenses, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
[…]
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Moss also expressed questions on the charge in a separate hearing last month, noting that the government must present a clear differentiation between obstructing an official proceeding and lesser charges that carry maximum punishments of six months in prison.
Federal Judge: Capitol Hill Rioters' Charges Might Be Unconstitutional
During a lengthy hearing Wednesday for the conspiracy case involving 18 members of the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia asked about the determinations prosecutors used to file a felony charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress.
“Essentially, what you said is, ‘Trust us,’?” Mehta said, according to The Washington Post.
“And that is a real problem when it comes to criminal statutes, to suggest, ‘We know it when we see it, and we’ll pick and choose when it is an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.’?”
Defense attorneys, including David W. Fischer, who is representing co-defendant Thomas Edward Caldwell, have argued that the felony charge was not being properly applied to the case, claiming that the congressional certification of Electoral College votes did not meet the definition of an “official proceeding.”
The felony charge, which has been brought against Capitol riot defendants in addition to other misdemeanor offenses, carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
[…]
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Moss also expressed questions on the charge in a separate hearing last month, noting that the government must present a clear differentiation between obstructing an official proceeding and lesser charges that carry maximum punishments of six months in prison.
Federal Judge: Capitol Hill Rioters' Charges Might Be Unconstitutional