DOJ Will Move Forward With Obstruction Charges Against Two Jan. 6 Defendants After Supreme Court Ruling

The Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to move forward with bringing obstruction charges against two Jan. 6 defendants after the Supreme Court limited the scope of the underlying statute, according to a Wednesday filing.

Prosecutors argue Ohio couple Don and Shawndale Chilcoat’s conduct meets the heightened standard set by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fischer v. United States, marking what appears to be the first instance of prosecutors moving forward with charges after the ruling, according to Politico. In the weeks after the ruling, the DOJ requested more time to assess the decision’s impact on a number of cases, though it emphasized that the Supreme Court did not entirely reject its use of the statute.

The DOJ has charged hundreds of defendants under Section 1512(c)(2), which carries up to 20 years in prison for anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.” The Supreme Court ruled in June that the DOJ interpreted the statute too broadly, explaining the government must establish the defendant actually impaired or attempted to impair the availability of physical evidence.

Prosecutors argue the Chilcoats intended to stop the certification of the electoral college vote and were “aware that this proceeding involved records, documents, or other things—specifically, the electoral votes that Congress was to consider.” Shawndale Chilcoat said on Jan. 7, 2021, that they “were just trying to stop them from certifying the votes and didn’t know they were already gone,” according to the filing.

“From this evidence, the jury certainly will be able to infer that Shawndale Chilcoat attempted to impair the availability of the electoral college votes which Congress was to consider,” prosecutors wrote. “The jury can also infer, based on the defendants’ joint conduct and their relationship, that Donald Chilcoat did, too.”

Prosecutors included proposed jury instructions in the filing that would inform jurors on the limits of Section 1512(c)(2), which they noted differ “from prior jury instructions which did not focus on impairing the integrity of, or rendering unavailable, records, documents, or other things to be used in an official proceeding.”

In her concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested prosecutions could move forward if they “involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding.”