D.C. Circuit vacates obstruction count and finds Fifth Amendment violation
The D.C. Circuit vacated Schwartz’s § 1512(c)(2) conviction after Fischer, remanded for resentencing, and held that compelling him to unlock his cellphone violated the Fifth Amendment. The district court was directed to determine which, if any, remaining counts were affected; the court denied the other appellate claims.
Evidence on file
2 documents on file
Ryan2 documents
Ryan Nichols' own paperwork — grievances, motions, letters, cell notes.
article · Feb 8, 2025
Appellate counsel’s public explanation of Peter Schwartz cellphone ruling
Public statement by appellate counsel Dennis E. Boyle explaining the Fifth Amendment cellphone-unlock issue and the January 17, 2025 appellate result. This is identified as counsel commentary, not a court filing or independent judicial finding.
ruling · Jan 17, 2025
United States v. Brown — D.C. Circuit opinion in Peter Schwartz appeal
Published 43-page D.C. Circuit opinion, 125 F.4th 1186, vacating Schwartz’s § 1512(c)(2) conviction, remanding for resentencing, and holding that compelling him to unlock his cellphone violated the Fifth Amendment. The court directed count-specific harmless-error review and denied the remaining appellate claims.
Discussion
Comments here become part of the public record. Moderated.
No approved comments yet. Create an account and add the first case note.
Add to the record
Create an account to comment on this case.
Bring the opinion, question, or missing context that other platforms bury. Comments are signed-only, moderated, and tied to one real profile.