Obstruction Of Justice Prosecutions In Federal Law
1. Overview of Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of justice broadly refers to acts intended to interfere with the administration and due process of law. Under federal law, obstruction includes a variety of conduct designed to impede investigations, judicial proceedings, or the execution of legal duties.
Key Federal Statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 1503: Influencing or injuring an officer or juror.
18 U.S.C. § 1505: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, or committees.
18 U.S.C. § 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant.
18 U.S.C. § 1519: Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records.
18 U.S.C. § 1510: Obstruction of criminal investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 1001: False statements to federal officials.
These statutes address obstruction through acts like witness tampering, evidence destruction, lying to investigators, or influencing jurors.
2. Essential Elements
To secure a conviction, the government must prove:
The defendant knowingly engaged in conduct that obstructed justice.
The conduct had the natural and probable effect of interfering with an official proceeding.
The defendant acted with corrupt intent (i.e., a wrongful purpose).
3. Case Law Analysis
🔹 Case 1: United States v. Aguilar (1995)
Facts:
The defendant threatened a witness to prevent testimony in a federal trial.
Issue:
What constitutes “corrupt intent” under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (the obstruction statute)?
Outcome:
The Supreme Court held that the defendant must have acted with the intent to obstruct justice corruptly.
Significance:
Defined “corruptly” as acting with wrongful intent, not just mere interference.
Emphasized that good-faith conduct (even if misguided) is not obstruction.
🔹 Case 2: United States v. Safavian (2009)
Facts:
Safavian was charged with making false statements and obstructing justice during a federal investigation related to a contract.
Outcome:
Initially convicted, but later convictions were vacated due to errors in jury instructions on the obstruction charge.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of precise jury instructions on corrupt intent.
Demonstrated the complexity of proving obstruction during investigations.
🔹 Case 3: United States v. Skripalle (2013)
Facts:
Defendants destroyed emails and lied to investigators during a federal fraud investigation.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1519).
Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
Outcome:
Convicted on all counts.
Significance:
Established that destroying documents and lying to investigators constitutes obstruction.
Clarified that obstruction includes acts before or during formal proceedings.
🔹 Case 4: United States v. Loughner (2012)
Facts:
Loughner tried to intimidate a juror during his federal trial for shooting a congresswoman.
Charges:
Attempted obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503).
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to additional prison time.
Significance:
Reinforced that intimidating jurors is a clear form of obstruction.
Protecting the integrity of juries is a critical federal interest.
🔹 Case 5: United States v. Flynn (2020)
Facts:
Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor, was charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing justice during an investigation into foreign contacts.
Outcome:
Pled guilty to false statements; obstruction charges discussed during plea.
Significance:
Demonstrated how false statements can intertwine with obstruction.
Showed political and legal complexities in high-profile obstruction cases.
🔹 Case 6: United States v. Stein (2010)
Facts:
Lawyers at a major firm destroyed documents during an SEC investigation.
Charges:
Obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
Convicted after trial.
Significance:
Showed that obstruction applies not only to individuals but also corporate agents.
Reinforced consequences for document destruction during investigations.
4. Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Corrupt Intent Requirement | Defendant must act with wrongful, conscious intent to obstruct. |
| Broad Scope of Obstruction Acts | Includes lying, destroying evidence, witness tampering, jury tampering. |
| Materiality | Obstructive acts must have a natural tendency to interfere with proceedings. |
| Applicability Pre- and Post-Investigation | Obstruction covers actions before and during official investigations or trials. |
| Severe Penalties | Obstruction offenses often carry lengthy prison terms and fines. |
5. Conclusion
Obstruction of justice prosecutions are central to maintaining the integrity of the federal legal system. Courts carefully evaluate intent, the nature of the obstructive act, and the timing relative to investigations or proceedings. Case law consistently stresses the importance of corrupt intent and material interference with justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments