Three Supreme Court Obstruction Rulings Guided Mueller's Team

National Law Journal ^ | April 18, 2019 | Marcia Coyle

[NobleFree]

[...] >> Corrupt intent: United States v. Aguilar (1995) and Arthur Andersen v. United States (2005). Mueller’s prosecutors returned to the Aguilar and Andersen decisions for analysis on “corrupt intent.”

The special counsel’s report stated that the word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.’” Mueller cited to Andersen, too, which interpreted “corruptly” to mean “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil” and which held that acting “knowingly … corruptly” requires “consciousness of wrongdoing.” [...]

In Arthur Andersen, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of the accounting firm for obstructing an official proceeding by ordering the destruction of documents. A key issue at the firm’s trial was whether it had acted “corruptly.” In an opinion by Rehnquist, the justices held that the jury instructions improperly conveyed the elements of “corrupt persuasion” under the relevant statute.

“Only persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly … corruptly persuad[e],’” Rehnquist wrote. “And limiting criminality to persuaders conscious of their wrongdoing sensibly allows §1512(b) to reach only those with the level of ‘culpability … we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.’”

[sergeantdave]

Mueller’s team has skated on thin ice, and spring has arrived. Mueller is drowning.