Supreme Court sides with Jan. 6 rioter in obstruction case, ruling could impact Upstate men

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with a former police officer Joseph Fischer charged with obstruction when he participated in the Capitol riots on Jan 6, 2021.

Fischer, who is from Pennsylvania, challenged federal obstruction charges against him. His attorneys argue the scope of the law prohibits the destruction of documents, which Fischer has not been accused of doing. The U.S. government argued that the charge should apply to Jan. 6 rioters because they believed the words “obstruct” and “official proceeding” applied to the Capitol attack.

The law was adopted by Congress in 2002 after the Enron Scandal, which was a series of events after the company was accused of fraud and was later found to have destroyed documents.

The high court ruled 6-3 for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case again, as it previously ruled the obstruction law did apply to Jan. 6 cases.

Three of the five Upstate residents arrested after the Jan. 6 riot, William Norwood III of Greer, Derek Gunby, and George Tenney, both of Anderson, were also charged with obstruction, and the ruling could impact their cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, saying that to prove a violation of federal obstruction, the government “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

More: Supreme Court orders new review of obstruction charges for Trump and Jan. 6 defendants

The ruling brought an unexpected alliance between a usually divided court. The majority included mostly conservatives except for liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6th. Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer’s alleged conduct thus falls within (c)(2)’s scope,” Barrett wrote in her dissent.

"It might get violent"

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Justice Department, argued that Fischer texted his boss, a police chief, that “it might get violent.” Later, on Jan. 6, the government argues that Fischer recorded a cellphone video at approximately 3:24 p.m., standing outside of the Capitol’s East Rotunda doors and that Fischer could be heard yelling “charge” and entered the building, only leaving forcibly four minutes later.

Prelogar says he was involved in “the violent riot that forced a suspension of the constitutionally and statutorily required congressional counting of presidential electors ballots on January 6, 2021.”

Though Fischer’s defense says the law only applies to the destruction of documents, Prelogar argues “that it functions as a catchall offense designed to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.”

Fischer’s defense also argues that when the crowd breached the Capitol, he was in Maryland, not D.C., and only returned after Congress had recessed and was not forcibly removed but left on his own accord.

The court’s decision will not only directly impact about 350 individuals who were also charged with obstruction due to their involvement with Jan 6, but it can also impact former President Donald Trump’s election interference case.

Two felony accounts accuse Trump of obstructing Congress as the riots disrupted Congress’ certification of the electoral vote on Jan. 6. The Supreme Court is set to rule in the former president’s claim of immunity from prosecution on Monday, the last day of the court’s current term.

The Upstate cases

Norwood, 44, was arrested on Feb. 25, 2021. He was charged in federal court with obstruction of an official proceeding, theft of government property, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, entering and remaining in certain rooms in the Capitol Building, and disorderly conduct.

He is free on a personal recognizance bond.  His indictment was filed on Feb. 19, 2021. He pled not guilty on all accounts and awaits trial. He is represented by Marina Medvin of the Medvin Law Firm in Alexandra, Va.

On Nov. 13, 2023, a jury convicted Gunby, 43, of one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, four counts of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

Gunby’s sentencing was originally scheduled for March 1, but was delayed for the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“It's a great day for our client and for numerous other clients, especially of all the Jan. 6 defendants who were wrongfully given that charge," said Gunby's attorney, John Pierce of the John Pierce Law Firm in Woodland Hills, Ca., after the decision Friday. "We are definitely excited for our day in court.”

Tenney, 37, pled guilty to civil disorder and obstruction of an official proceeding on June 30, 2022.

He was sentenced to three years in prison on Dec. 5, 2022, and remains incarcerated. He will face three years of supervised release and pay a $2,000 restitution fine.

On May 2, 2023, William John Wyatt Gallman, 40, and Joei Lean Gallman, 44, of Fountain Inn, both pled guilty to parading, demonstrating or picketing the Capitol Building. They were sentenced to a year and a half of probation and a fine.

James Douglas Lollis Jr., 49, of Greer, pled guilty on Nov. 22, 2021, to one count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol building.  He was sentenced on Feb. 17 to 36 months of probation with a condition of home detention and ordered to pay $500 in restitution.

Reporter Terry Benjamin III contributed.

Savannah Moss covers politics for the Greenville News. Reach her at smoss@gannett.com or follow her on X @Savmoss.

This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Supreme Court Jan. 6 ruling could impact sentences of three Upstate men