Author JOSEPH V. DE MARCO *
Excerpt
INTRODUCTION
Section 1503 of the federal obstruction of justice statute 1 is one of the most powerful tools available to a prosecutor. 2 In the past, it has been used to punish an extremely wide range of behavior, including witness tampering, bribery of court personnel, perjury, document destruction, and attempts to mislead the government.
Yet despite the broad range of acts that fall within its bounds, a critical element of the offense of "obstruction of justice" remains obscured by Congressional silence and confused by judicial interpretation. Although one might presume the crime to require a purposeful frame of mind, the mens rea 4 requirement has never been clearly articulated. 5 This ambiguity has lead to a deepening rift between the circuits on the proper mens rea requirement for criminal obstruction of justice.
This Note argues that the mens rea requirement articulated by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Neiswender, 6 and adopted by the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, is inconsistent with § 1503's legislative history, the Supreme Court's decision in Pettibone v. United States, 7 and the mens rea requirements in analogous areas of law. Furthermore, this Note argues that the Neiswender doctrine, if carried to its logical extreme, could permit criminal prosecution of conduct which amounts to little more than negligence.
Part I discusses the obstruction of justice statute, examining both its legislative history and the conflicting judicial interpretations of its mens rea requirement. Part II focuses on the ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Search Documents
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy
See Related Content
That's the best I could do at the legal subscription site, Lexis Nexis.