Appeals court upholds broad use of obstruction law that prosecutors have deployed against Trump

posted in: Politics | 0

Federal prosecutors on Friday narrowly avoided an appeals court ruling that could have upended their criminal prosecution of Donald Trump, but the legal battle will continue over a federal obstruction statute that has become a cornerstone of cases stemming from the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a long-awaited opinion, ruled that there are numerous ways for the government to prove that Jan. 6 defendants acted “corruptly” when seeking to obstruct Congress’ proceedings. The decision is a bullet dodged for special counsel Jack Smith, because a D.C. Circuit ruling that narrowly construed the meaning of “corruptly” could have derailed Smith’s prosecution of Trump on an obstruction charge.

The judges ruled, 2-1, that efforts by some Jan. 6 defendants to sharply limit the conduct covered by the federal obstruction law were misguided. The ruling, which upheld a jury conviction for former Virginia police officer Thomas Robertson, concluded that efforts to install the losing presidential candidate could be enough to support an obstruction conviction.

The opinion is likely to be appealed to the full bench of the D.C. Circuit or to the Supreme Court. But it nevertheless is an important milestone with repercussions for hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including Trump’s. The judges have labored for months to navigate the complexities of the federal “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute, a felony with a 20-year maximum sentence that was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.

Prosecutors have routinely used the statute as the leading charge for those who breached the Capitol intending to disrupt Congress’ session to certify the 2020 election results. Defendants who have challenged the law say they were not acting “corruptly” because they believed Trump genuinely won the election and therefore didn’t intend a “corrupt” outcome.

Complicating the issue is the murky nature of what it means to “obstruct” Congress. All three judges on the case appeared to agree that lobbyists and peaceful protesters often attempt to influence the outcome of congressional policy debates but should not be subject to 20-year felonies for constitutionally protected actions.

The majority opinion Friday was written by D.C. Circuit Judge Florence Pan, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, and joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama. They concluded that most forms of lobbying and peaceful protest wouldn’t meet the “corrupt” requirement they laid out, but Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, dissented, arguing that such actions might be swept into the definition her colleagues adopted.

Some judges have expressed concern that too broad a definition of “corruptly” could cover not only minor infractions at ordinary protests but even lobbying or the stalling tactics that are a routine part of lawmaking at the Capitol.

But precisely what conduct does meet that standard is fairly broad, the judges ruled. For example, the ruling Friday concludes that defendants who committed other felonies on Jan. 6 can be convicted of the obstruction of Congress charge — and subject to its 20-year maximum sentence — without prosecutors proving that they knew specifics about that day’s congressional proceedings.

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with three conspiracies connected to his effort to subvert the 2020 election, including one to obstruct Congress’ proceedings that day, the same charge faced by Robertson and more than 300 Jan. 6 rioters.

The majority opinion Friday also held that interfering with or impeding the electoral-vote certification on Jan. 6 in a bid to get Trump declared the victor of the 2020 election would be enough to sustain a conviction for obstruction of Congress.

“That evidence was plainly sufficient to support a finding that Robertson intended to secure the unlawful benefit of installing the loser of the presidential election, Donald J. Trump, as its winner,” Pan wrote.

Robertson was one of the first Jan. 6 defendants convicted by a jury of obstructing the proceedings that day. He carried a large stick with him on Capitol grounds and made physical contact with an outnumbered platoon of riot police making their way to the building, video of which led the jury to convict Robertson of assaulting an officer while wielding a dangerous weapon. A judge sentenced him to 87 months in prison.

In dissent, Henderson said a conviction under the obstruction statute should be allowed only when a defendant is seeking to obtain a “financial” or “professional” benefit or to improperly escape justice either for himself or another person.

Henderson also provocatively insisted that Pan misunderstood her own opinion from April in another obstruction-related challenge from a Jan. 6 defendant, with Henderson declaring that Pan’s description of her own ruling “cannot be right.”

Henderson said that splintered April ruling effectively agreed on the narrow definition of “corruptly” she endorsed Friday, but Pan and Pillard disagreed.

Pan also said the effort to get Trump certified as the winner when he was not could qualify as the kind of “professional” benefit Henderson argued could be used to involve the obstruction statute.

The D.C. Circuit rarely accepts cases for review en banc, which effectively wipes out the three-judge panel ruling and leads to reargument of the case before all 11 of the appeals court’s active judges. Taking a case en banc ordinarily requires six of those judges to vote in favor of that step. It’s unclear whether the court will do so here if Robertson’s lawyers ask for it, but in addition to Henderson, Judges Greg Katsas and Justin Walker — both appointed by Trump — have expressed concerns about the breadth of the use of the obstruction statute.

No Path to Redemption for Devout Death Row Inmates

posted in: News | 0

Every day at 6 a.m., Will Speer’s testimony is broadcast across the airwaves on the Polunsky Unit’s radio station. He talks to his fellow prisoners about redemption, salvation, and faith. 

He is scheduled to be executed October 26.  

Speer was convicted and sent to prison for the murder of his friend’s father when he was 16 years old. While incarcerated at the Telford Unit, he killed fellow prisoner Gary Dickerson in an attempt to gain membership to a prison gang. He was sentenced to death. 

Now, as his lawyers and advocates seek clemency from Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Speer’s faith is central to their pleas. Speer is one of many on Texas’ death row who have asked for life in prison over the death penalty due to their spiritual devotion in prison—but the God-fearing state doesn’t typically grant clemency for that reason. 

Speer, now 49, was one of 28 people chosen to participate in the inaugural class of the Faith Based Program on Death Row in December 2021. He was chosen after a “rigorous” application process for the program that consisted of several classes and immersive fellowship in a special housing area. Religious pleas for mercy are common in a place like Texas. The state’s own prison system offers faith-based programs as part of its rehabilitation department, pouring resources into classes dedicated to teaching remorse and redemption. The participants in these programs—and prison administration—laud them for creating second chances and leading to safer prison environments. But when it comes to the ultimate second chance—commuting an execution to life in prison—the people with power to grant clemency are not so moved. 

Texas was the first state to offer such a religious fellowship program on death row, and according to the clemency application, the program “created a space for [Speer] to begin a meaningful spiritual journey.” 

He graduated on June 7 and was tapped to become the first inmate coordinator of the program. His appointment was the popular choice among prison administration, as well as the men he would oversee in the role. He received his execution date just a month after being named coordinator. 

Speer was moved to a separate housing area for those with upcoming execution dates, but he got special permission from the warden to continue working as coordinator—a job that would have him leave his heavily supervised housing area regularly. According to Speer’s clemency application, “this is a testament not only to the level of trust TDCJ [the Texas Department of Criminal Justice] has in Will—as no one with an execution date has previously been granted such freedom of movement—but also to Will’s sincere dedication to what he believes to be his mission: mentoring men who are as lost as he once was.”

Jedidiah Murphy’s execution earlier this month drew a fierce outpouring of support from his religious community before he was put to death, with his lawyers and other allies insisting that his faith had changed him. On October 10, as he was preparing to receive a lethal injection, his final words were a recitation of Psalm 34: “The Lord redeems the soul of his servants, and none of those who trust in him shall be condemned.” 

In June of 2022, Speer was baptized at the Polunsky Unit. The event was attended by TDCJ Field Ministers, as well as Polunsky’s then-warden Daniel Dickerson. At this point, Will had completed six months of his religious education in the faith-based program on death row. After his baptism, he was “declared a new man.” 

Now, as the Board of Pardons and Paroles weighs whether to commute Speer’s sentence, Texans will get a glimpse into whether the state’s promised paths to rehabilitation and salvation lead anywhere.  

Clemency, with its connotation of mercy and compassion, is entirely subjective—often a black-box decision made by an executive or an administrative body. But it’s also a critical tool for preventing miscarriages of justice. The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1987 that a death penalty system without “discretionary acts of leniency would be totally alien to our notions of criminal justice.” 

Clemency processes have always existed at the federal and state level. Granting clemency can look like a pardon, which undoes a criminal conviction, or a commutation, which lessens a sentence. According to Michael Heise, author of the 2003 report on the death penalty “Mercy by the Numbers,” “the constitutional Framers viewed pardons as a public act of office rather than a private act of grace.” 

That sentiment still exists to a certain extent today: Clemency decisions are affected by the political leaning of the president or governor and whether it’s an election year. 

“Clemencies in death penalty cases are difficult to predict and immune from judicial review.”

“Thus the process may be highly political,” the Death Penalty Information Center wrote. “For these reasons, clemencies in death penalty cases are difficult to predict and immune from judicial review.” 

The clemency process lies totally outside of the court system. In Texas, the Board of Pardons and Paroles—a body made up of gubernatorial appointees—decides whether to recommend clemency to the governor, who has ultimate authority to accept or deny the recommendation. But the governor can only recommend clemency if the board agrees. 

In death row cases, clemency holds a special significance: It’s the last available option to forestall an execution after all appeals have been exhausted. Overall, clemencies are rarely granted in capital cases (an average of less than two per year nationwide, according to the Death Penalty Information Center). 

Texas’ clemency process has a blotchy permanent record. In 1999, Amnesty International declared that, because of issues of secrecy and a lack of training of board members, “Texas has turned the final safeguard of executive clemency into nothing more than an empty gesture.”

This declaration came just one year after one of the most well-known religious-based clemency appeals in Texas history failed.

In 1998, the Washington Post referred to Karla Faye Tucker as “the Pickax Killer turned born-again Christian.” Tucker, who was sentenced to death after murdering Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton in Houston in a drug-fueled frenzy in 1983, gained international notoriety for her dramatic religious conversion while on death row. 

“Texas has turned the final safeguard of executive clemency into nothing more than an empty gesture.”

In the weeks leading up to her execution date in February of 1998, Pope John Paul II even appealed for mercy in her case. But the pardons board declined her application for clemency. Then-Governor George W. Bush would have had the power to grant her a 30 day stay of execution, but he refused, saying “May God bless Karla Faye Tucker and may God bless her victims and their families.”

Tucker became the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War. 

A contemporary account in Texas Monthly summed up the inherent friction between the death penalty and religious appeals for clemency: “The many around the world who protested believed that Tucker had been redeemed and that her life should be spared, but that belief has no standing in a courtroom.” 

Religious appeals for clemency aren’t unusual, but they’re not the majority of cases either, says Mark Osler, professor at St. Thomas School of Law and renowned clemency and legal scholar.

“In clemency work, if we have a good case, often we’re talking about someone who’s changed their life in some way,” he told the Texas Observer. “Because of the nature of faith, often that does have to do with a religion they’ve either adopted or reembraced.” 

But even if someone has changed their life, there’s almost no way to change their sentence. 

Osler wrote the book Jesus on Death Row to explore the legal processes behind Jesus’ crucifixion in the Bible. In doing so, he hoped to speak directly to devout Christians who support the death penalty, despite there being “a wrongful conviction right there at the center” of the religion. 

“People don’t put the two things in juxtaposition. They don’t hold them together,” he said. “They don’t think about Holy Week when they think about executions. They don’t think about the Eucharist when they think about the last meal of a condemned person.” 

In Texas, only three men have ever been granted clemency from a death sentence by the governor: Thomas Whitaker in 2018, Kenneth Foster in 2007, and Henry Lee Lucas in 1998. (Other death row prisoners have had their sentences commuted because of U.S. Supreme Court rulings or other external circumstances.) 

Clemency requests can focus on innocence claims—as in Lucas’ case—or the supposed unfair application of the law. In Foster’s case, he was sentenced to death after a botched robbery ended in a murder, but he was just the getaway driver. In Whitaker’s case, his lawyers appealed to the more discretionary aspect of the clemency process.

In 2003, Whitaker was involved in a plot to kill his mother, father, and 19-year-old brother for inheritance money. Then 23, he conspired with his roommate, Chris Brashear, who ambushed the family at their home one night. Brashear shot and killed Whitaker’s mother and brother, but his father, Kent Whitaker, survived the attack. 

Kent Whitaker, a devout Christian, would spend the next 15 years pleading for his only remaining son’s life. 

Whitaker’s attorney Keith Hampton focused not on the religious ideals of the man on death row, but appealed to the Christian sensibilities of his father and the board members. 

“My view of clemency is that it’s sort of the moral fail-safe where the courts have gotten it wrong, or the courts can’t do anything to provide justice,” Hampton told the Observer. Hampton, who has represented two of the three men who have received discretionary clemency in Texas history, said the most successful appeals have an emotional core. 

He said because the pardons board has read all about the crime that landed the person on death row, they’re “a tough audience.” 

“The only way to reach them is an upfront, honest, verifiable appeal to mercy,” he said. 

“The only way to reach them is an upfront, honest, verifiable appeal to mercy.”

In the clemency application, he summarized the biblical story of Cain and Abel, the ill-fated sons of Adam and Eve. Cain kills Abel, the story goes. While the Bible doesn’t go into specifics, the application notes that Eve “did not cry out for his execution as God’s answer to her grief.” God goes on to mark Cain “for his crime, as well as for Cain’s own protection” and sends him to “restlessly wander the world.” 

“Commutation means that we as a society do not forgive or execute [Whitaker],” the clemency application states. “We will instead mark him to wander his own mind within the desolation of his own cell. And this punishment will continue until God decides otherwise.”

Whitaker was scheduled to be executed on February 22, 2018. In an exceedingly rare event, the Board of Pardons and Paroles voted unanimously to grant Whitaker clemency. Governor Abbott agreed. 

Will Speer actually submitted a testimonial in favor of Whitaker’s clemency. “Of all the people I have met over the years Thomas Whitaker is the person I believe deserves clemency the most,” he wrote to the board. “He is one of the best liked inmates on this farm by the guards and other inmates, and he has worked the hardest to rehabilitate himself.” 

Per Speer’s own clemency application, his goal, if granted clemency, would be to become a field minister. To do so, he would complete a four-year bachelor of arts in applied ministry through the prison system’s education program. It’s one of the many faith-based rehabilitation programs offered by TDCJ. 

In 1997, Gary Dickerson’s sister was a witness in the sentencing phase for Speer’s capital murder trial. Recently, she spoke out in support of clemency.

“In my heart, I feel that he is not only remorseful for his actions but has been doing good works for others and has something left to offer the world,” she said in a public appeal. “After all I have learned about Mr. Speer, I respectfully request that his sentence be changed to life in prison where hopefully he can continue to help others and make amends for his past crimes.” 

The post No Path to Redemption for Devout Death Row Inmates appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Chief prosecutor of Jan. 6 rioters describes ‘pervasive’ threats to his office

posted in: Politics | 0

The federal prosecutors who have brought charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters are seeing an uptick in violent threats and harassment directed toward their office, the office’s lead prosecutor told congressional investigators.

Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for Washington, said the threats come from around the country and have become “pervasive,” though he did not elaborate on their substance or whether any law enforcement agency is investigating them.

Graves’ comments, documented in a transcript obtained by POLITICO, came in a closed-door interview on Oct. 3 with the House Judiciary Committee about the Hunter Biden probe. In the interview, Republican investigators pressed Graves on allegations that his office refused to assist the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is leading the probe into the president’s son. Graves declined to answer some of the investigators’ questions about his personnel, citing threats to his office.

The threats he described appear to be part of a broader trend of law enforcement officials grappling with security concerns while working on politically charged cases.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which is running two federal prosecutions of Donald Trump, spent nearly $2 million for U.S. marshals protection from November to March, according to a person familiar with the spending granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor leading a separate prosecution of Trump, reported receiving 150 personal threats in the two months following her indictment of the former president and his allies.

And Thomas Sobocinski, an FBI agent connected to the Hunter Biden probe, previously told congressional investigators that law enforcement personnel working on that investigation have faced threats — and that their families have, as well.

“People are trying to fuel the sentiment of stoking ire against these dedicated civil servants,” Graves said in the interview with the House Judiciary investigators. “And you really don’t even know the extent of it because it’s not group affiliated.”

Graves repeatedly declined to name subordinates in his office who were involved in the decision last year not to team up with David Weiss, the Delaware prosecutor who has long been investigating Hunter Biden on tax and gun issues. Linking his deputies to Weiss’ probe could put them at risk, Graves said.

“I’m already dealing with enough threats and harassment of my assistant United States attorneys who are career prosecutors,” he said.

He alluded to unspecified “mitigation measures” that he has put in place to protect himself and other people in his office.

Graves did not describe the source or the nature of the threats. But the most nationally prominent work he’s helmed — by far — stems from the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Justice Department has charged more than 1,100 people with crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack, and Graves’ office has played a central role in coordinating the nationwide undertaking. A spokesperson for the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

In his interview, Graves also defended his interaction with Weiss, who was designated as a special counsel in August. Whistleblowers have said that Weiss indicated Graves refused to partner with him in bringing a case against Hunter Biden in Washington, hindering the investigation. Graves, however, told investigators that he offered Weiss as much logistical support as he requested. And he said that when the two U.S. attorneys spoke on the phone about the case, he suggested that they partner — only to decide several weeks later that it would not be the right move.

Is the Patriots’ health improving before Sunday’s Bills game?

posted in: News | 0

The Patriots were down just three players at Friday’s practice, the last before they will host the Bills on Sunday for a 1 p.m. kickoff.

Related Articles

New England Patriots |


Patriots mailbag: What changes are coming in the next year?

New England Patriots |


Callahan: Bills QB Josh Allen has become Bill Belichick-proof

New England Patriots |


Patriots release 2023 NFL Draft pick, freeing up roster spot

New England Patriots |


Patriots’ Jabrill Peppers received special attention from Bill Belichick this week

New England Patriots |


Patriots’ Jalen Mills breaks silence on tweet over lack of playing time

Outside linebacker Josh Uche, defensive lineman Keion White and offensive tackle Riley Reiff were absent, indicating they will miss Sunday’s game after sitting out all three practices this week.

Tight end Hunter Henry (ankle) and cornerback Jonathan Jones (ankle) were non-participants on Wednesday and Thursday, but took the field to start Friday’s practice. It’s unclear whether they will be able to suit up against Buffalo.

The Patriots will release their final injury report after 4 p.m. Friday.