US Supreme Court raises bar for obstruction charge. Here's what it means for Jan. 6 defendants 

(ASSOCIATED PRESS) The Supreme Court on Friday made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, a charge used in hundreds of prosecutions and also faced by former President Donald Trump.
The justices ruled 6-3 that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.
The decision could be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.
It's unclear how the court's decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, although special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected.
The high court returned the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer to a lower court to determine if Fischer can be charged with obstruction. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
Fischer is among about 350 people who have been charged with obstruction. Some pleaded guilty to or were convicted of lesser charges.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's opinion, joined by conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, and by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Reading the obstruction statute broadly "would also criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists to decades in prison,” Roberts wrote.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Barrett, one of three justices appointed by Trump, wrote that the law clearly encompasses the events of Jan. 6. “The riot forced Congress to suspend the proceeding, delaying it for several hours,” she wrote.
She said her colleagues in the majority did “textual backflips to find some way - any way - to narrow the reach” of the obstruction law.
READ MORE: www.13wmaz.com...