NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Eric Munchel of Nashville is one of at least four January 6 rioters from Tennessee who could be impacted by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling.
Justices ruled 6-3 on Friday that the Justice Department went too far when charging rioters with “obstruction of an official proceeding” for their actions during the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
Munchel was found guilty of all charges which included obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to commit obstruction, entering a restricted building with a deadly or dangerous weapon and unlawful possession of a weapon on Capitol grounds.
In total, Munchel was found guilty of five felonies and three misdemeanors. He was later sentenced to five and half years in prison.
Munchel’s mother, Lisa Eisenhart, was also charged with obstruction and later found guilty of two felonies and five misdemeanors. Eisenhart was sentenced to two years in prison.
Joseph Padilla of Cleveland, TN was also charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, among several other charges related to assaulting and resisting officers.
Padilla was sentenced to what was one of the harsher penalties at the time when he was sent to prison for six and a half years. Less than half of what prosecutors recommended.
It’s not clear if the higher court’s decision means hundreds of similar cases will be reopened, but local attorneys tell NewsChannel 5 Investigates that this will likely bring prosecutors and defense attorneys back to the table to negotiate shorter sentences.
Ronnie Presley of Sumner County was initially charged with obstruction of an official proceeding but pleaded guilty to one count of civil disorder. Presley was later sentenced to 12 months in prison with credit for time served, followed by 26 months of supervised release.
Attorneys tell NewsChannel 5 Investigates that while Presley was not ultimately sentenced to the charge now challenged by the Supreme Court, he may still have legal recourse to fight his conviction.
They say the Supreme Court opened the door for anyone charged with obstruction in these cases to request a new trial on the grounds that the Justice Department overstepped.
Justices came to their decision after hearing arguments from a former Pennsylvania police officer, Joseph Fischer, who was indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.
The conservative majority of the high court questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department had exceeded the scope of the statute for obstruction, some stating the law was so broad it could even be used against peaceful protests.
Kagan said the law regarding obstruction can be interpreted in two ways and the drafters of the amendments could have made it clear it only applies to evidence tampering but they did not.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the broadness of the law could also apply to a sit-in at a trial, someone who pulled a fire alarm before a congressional vote or a heckler in the Supreme Court’s gallery.
Barrett and Jackson expressed interest in more of a middle-ground outcome in which the interpretation could be narrowed enough to make it harder, but not impossible, for prosecutors to use the obstruction charge in cases like Fischer’s.
Hundreds of other insurrectionists have faced the same charge for impeding an official proceeding, including former President Donald Trump, who was defeated in the 2020 election. This high court ruling could affect those decisions. The Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court to decide whether the charges should still stand.
According to The Associated Press about 170 of those Jan. 6 defendants charged with obstruction have been convicted, most of whom entered the Senate chamber or offices of Congress members during the riot. Many had their sentences delayed until the high court ruling.
Trump faces two obstruction charges in a separate case — the same case the Supreme Court will soon decide on regarding the former president’s claims of immunity.
According to The Associated Press, special counsel Jack Smith, who brought forth the obstruction charges against Trump in a federal court in Washington, D.C., has argued that the charges against Trump are valid regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The court noted that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”
Roberts ruled that prosecutors must show that the "defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so."
Essentially, he said the Department of Justice used too broad of an interpretation of the law in bringing charges against Fischer.
Roberts' assertion was one Attorney General Merrick Garland said he disagreed with.
“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," he said.
Roberts added that there was not a single case against the alleged Jan. 6 rioters in which only obstruction charges were filed.
"For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling," Garland added. "We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”
