by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk:

The Justice department’s prosecutorial overreach, no doubt influenced by Biden, blew up in the Supreme Court today.

Supreme Court Rules Prosecutors Overreached in Jan. 6 Cases

The Wall Street Journal reports Supreme Court Rules Prosecutors Overreached in Jan. 6 Cases

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Justice Department improperly charged some of the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a decision that could affect hundreds of cases—and potentially help former President Donald Trump.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Prosecutors have charged more than 1,400 people who attacked the building while Congress met to certify President Biden’s win, and turned to an Enron-era obstruction of justice statute to elevate some of those cases.

The Justice Department may have gone too far in doing so, the Supreme Court said, by taking a law prosecutors have mostly used against people they thought were tampering with evidence in criminal investigations and applying it to the riot.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing a 6-3 decision that didn’t fall neatly along ideological lines, said Congress likely didn’t intend for the obstruction provision to serve as a catchall to address conduct beyond the type of wrongdoing that prompted the legislation—the corruption or destruction of documents in an official proceeding.

To convict under the statute, prosecutors must prove that the defendant interfered with “records, documents, objects” or “other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision will have immediate ripple effects, prompting some Jan. 6 defendants to seek resentencing.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t fully follow ideological stereotypes. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Dissenting on Friday, Barrett observed that the allegations against Fischer include trespassing and a physical confrontation with police as “part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results.” The case that Fischer could be tried for “obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding,” as the statute sets out, “seems open and shut,” she wrote.

Prosecutorial Overreach Backfires

I sympathize with Barrett on Fischer. Was there not a better case that did not involve physical confrontation with police?

Yet, I agree with the majority on the overall ruling: “Congress likely didn’t intend for the obstruction provision to serve as a catchall to address conduct beyond the type of wrongdoing that prompted the legislation—the corruption or destruction of documents in an official proceeding.”

Perhaps this was not the best case for the Supreme Court to review. Then again, perhaps it was precisely the best case given that even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority despite the physical confrontation.

Read More @ MishTalk.com