On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the government can prosecute alleged January 6, 2021, rioters for corruptly obstructing an official proceeding—even in cases that did not involve tampering with documents. The decision was seen as a victory for the government, which has used the felony obstruction charge against more than 300 people charged in the Capitol riot. However, the opinion raised questions about the obstruction charge’s “corrupt intent” requirement, which could pose a problem in some obstruction cases.
The decision overturned a ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols of the District of Columbia, who had ruled last year that the obstruction charge applied only to defendants who tampered with official documents or records during the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The D.C. Circuit reversed on the tampering issue and revived the charge against three January 6 defendants.
In a concurring opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker said the corrupt-intent requirement means that defendants can’t be convicted of obstruction unless they intend to obtain a benefit they know is unlawful. This view could narrow the scope of the obstruction charge and make it more difficult for prosecutors to prove corrupt intent in some cases.
However, in her majority opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan said there is no need to decide the intent issue in the case before the court because all three defendants were charged with assaulting police officers. Corrupt intent at least exists when an obstructive action is independently unlawful, and there is no question that the assault defendants had corrupt intent, Pan said.
BCG Attorney Search is your one-stop-shop for the most comprehensive legal job listings.
U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas dissented, arguing that the majority and concurring opinions would continue to “supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies, provided the defendant knows he is acting unlawfully in some small way.” Katsas said the obstruction statute should be limited to conduct that impairs the integrity or the availability of evidence.
The decision has significant implications for the January 6 prosecutions and the government’s use of the obstruction charge. Defense lawyers for January 6 defendants are already poring over Walker’s analysis, Politico reports. The government has sometimes used the maximum 20-year sentence charge as a “cudgel” in plea negotiations.
The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol urged the Department of Justice to charge former President Donald Trump with obstruction. Any ruling narrowing the definition of “corrupt intent” could take such a charge off the table, Politico said.
The decision also highlights the broader debate over using the obstruction charge in criminal prosecutions. Critics argue that the charge is overused and can be used to punish political speech and activity. Supporters argue that the charge is necessary to ensure that individuals do not obstruct legitimate government proceedings. The decision is unlikely to settle this debate, but it could have significant implications for the future of the obstruction charge in criminal cases.