Obstruction of Justice

Note: This wiki article contains information applicable to United States law only.

obstruction of justice n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.

The integrity of the judicial system depends on the participants' acting honestly and without fear of reprisals. Threatening a judge, trying to bribe a witness, or encouraging the destruction of evidence are examples of obstruction of justice. Federal and state laws make it a crime to obstruct justice.

Obstruction of justice in the federal courts is governed by a series of criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501-1517), which aim to protect the integrity of federal judicial proceedings as well as agency and congressional proceedings. Section 1503 is the primary vehicle for punishing those who obstruct or who endeavor to obstruct federal judicial proceedings.

Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, grand and petit jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding. In addition, section 1503 makes it illegal to attempt the bribery of an official to alter the outcome of a judicial proceeding.

Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the "due administration of justice." Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

Federal obstruction of justice statutes have been used to prosecute government officials who have sought to prevent the disclosure of damaging information. The Watergate scandal of the 1970s involving President Richard M. Nixon is a classic example of this type of obstruction. A number of Nixon's top aides were convicted of obstruction of justice, including former attorney general John N. Mitchell. A federal grand jury named Nixon himself as an unindicted coconspirator for the efforts to prevent disclosure of White House involvement in the 1972 burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C.

Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. "Endeavor" has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that "endeavor" constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal "attempt."

[WSJ Law Blog]

It’s been some time since we blogged about the Dickie Scruggs scandal, which took up so many of our waking moments back in late 2007 and early 2008.

But since then, there’s been significant fallout from the scandal, none perhaps more significant than the fall of Bobby DeLaughter, the prominent prosecutor-turned-judge, who in July pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice. (DeLaughter admitted to lying to an FBI agent during a judicial corruption investigation.)

On Friday, DeLaughter was sentenced to 18 months in prison for his crime. Click here for the AP story.

According to the story, DeLaughter, 55, apologized in the courtroom. “I do want to express my sincere apologies not only to this honorable court, but to all my former colleagues, the people of Mississippi, and especially the people of Hinds County,” DeLaughter said. He must report to prison on Jan. 4.

The sentencing judge, Glen Davidson, chided DeLaughter in open court, saying he had brought shame to the profession. “You’ve been to peaks and today you stand in a very deep valley,” Davidson said.

DeLaughter made a name for himself in 1994 when he was an assistant district attorney and helped convict Byron de la Beckwith for the 30-year-old murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers. The trial was the basis for the 1996 movie “Ghosts of Mississippi,” with Alec Baldwin playing DeLaughter. DeLaughter also wrote a book about the case, “Never Too Late: A Prosecutor’s Story of Justice in the Medgar Evers Case.”

So what comes next in the Scruggs saga? Perhaps that’s well, a wrap. According to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger’s Jerry Mitchell (the recent recipient of a MacArthur Genius Grant), the DeLaughter sentencing plea could mean the end of a saga that led to seven convictions, including that of Scruggs, who is now serving seven years in prison for conspiring to bribe Mississippi judge Henry Lackey.

[forum_admin]

UPDATE

Former Mississippi prosecutor DeLaughter is to begin serving his 18-month prison sentence today at a facility in Kentucky. "The man has now been destroyed, politically and economically. It's that serious," said Charles Evers, the brother of Medgar Evers. He said he is trying to raise money to help pay DeLaughter's expenses while he's in prison. "What can we do but fight for a man who fought for us?" he said. "I want DeLaughter to know I'm behind him 100 percent."

Read more: Prosecutor in the Medgar Evers murder case caught in corruption probe