Section 1503 of Title 18, United States Code, as amended by the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, forbids tampering with or retaliating against any grand or petit juror, or any officer in or of any court of the United States by threats or force or by "endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede." Section 1503 also contains an omnibus clause prohibiting the obstruction of "the due administration of justice." By virtue of the omnibus clause, many courts have held that it is possible to obstruct justice under section 1503 by means similar to, but different from, those specifically enumerated in the first part of the provision. United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 713 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630, 632 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 850-52 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, sub. nom.Phillips v. United States, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982). A party may be prosecuted under section 1503 for endeavoring to obstruct justice, United States v. Neal, supra; United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968, 976 (5th Cir. 1989); it is no defense that such obstruction was unsuccessful, United States v. Edwards, 36 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Neal, supra; or that it was impossible to accomplish, United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Brimberry, 744 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039 (1987).The term "officer in or of any court of the United States" includes:- United States District Judges, United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1981) (by implication);United States v. Glickman, 604 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1979) (by implication), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980); United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (by implication); United States v. Margoles, 294 F.2d 371, 373 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961);
- United States Attorneys, Jones, supra; United States v. Polakoff, 112 F.2d 888, 890 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 653 (1940);
- United States Bankruptcy Judges, United States v. Fulbright, 69 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1995) (by implication);
- Supreme Court Justices, United States Courts of Appeals Judges, United States Magistrate Judges, clerks of Federal courts, law clerks to Federal judges, Federal court staff attorneys, Federal court reporters, Federal prosecutors and defense counsel.
Because 18 U.S.C. § 1503 applies to civil, as well as criminal judicial proceedings, Roberts v. United States, 239 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1956); Sneed v. United States, 298 F. 911, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 265 U.S. 590 (1924); see Nye v. United States, 137 F.2d 73 (4th Cir.) (by implication), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 755 (1943), private attorneys are, arguably, also covered by the statute.A venireman is a "petit juror" within the meaning of section 1503. United States v. Jackson, 607 F.2d 1219, 1222 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980); see United States v. Osborn, 415 F.2d 1021, 1024 (6th Cir. 1969) (en banc), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1015 (1970).The majority of United States Courts of Appeals have held that 18 U.S.C. § 1503 may be used to charge a defendant with witness tampering. United States v. Moody, 977 F.2d 1420 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 944 (1993); United States v. Kenny, 973 F.2d 339 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Branch, 850 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 (1989); United States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.),cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986); United States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1076 (1986); United States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984). But see United States v. Masterpol, 940 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1991) (construing the 1988 amendment to section 1512 as evidence of Congress's intent that witnesses were removed entirely from section 1503). |
+4This administration is in a shambles, and the Attorney General's office is little more than the facade, not unlike those built for a movie stage lot.
when the Slam-Dunk case ..
(that was even filmed by local newscasters)
of Voter Intimidation/Threats at polling places
by the NBPP ..
was "Swept" under the 'rug' ..
It's been quite a pattern indeed .. that this 'body politic' administration .. and their appointees .. all follow the 'obstructionist' line
It's true. Had the auto industry went under, we would be in deep doo-doo. It had to be done, but that needs to be fixed, but that can't be fixed by government. That has to come from the auto companies, themselves by telling what the workers can do with their big hourly wages and big bonuses, as well as the big show retirement if they don't break out with competitive cars. Since the auto workers were asleep at the wheel for so many years, basking in the glory of the Auto Workers' Union and the unreasonable demands in exchange for substandard work that resulted in substandard cars. The Japanese now have plants right here in the U.S.A., so now they don't even have to pay to get them over here to sell them.
Yea, I know, they hired workers to build them here. But do you think they let their workers booze it up and make cars? Sure they do. For the amount of time they do it until they get caught and fired. And it sticks. I don't want to hear about how it isn't so. I grew up around one of the plants. It was fun to watch you guys go into a bar for lunch and when the buzzer went off to go back,you would all go staggering back to work to build cars.