DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 20-1129 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCOTT PHILLIP FLYNN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General S. ROBERT LYONS KATIE BAGLEY JOSEPH B. SYVERSON GREGORY VICTOR DAVIS Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether petitioner understood the nature of his offense when he pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. 2. Whether a charge of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 is void for vagueness absent a requirement that the government prove a nexus between a defendant’s conduct and a par- ticular administrative proceeding. 3. Whether a district court is required to hold a sep- arate jury trial to determine the amount of restitution where a criminal defendant has stipulated to a range of financial loss caused by his unlawful conduct and the court-determined restitution figure is within that amount. (I) ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (D. Minn.): United States v. Flynn, No. 16-cr-347 (Jan. 24, 2019) United States Court of Appeals (8th Cir.): United States v. Flynn, No. 19-1263 (Aug. 13, 2020) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinion below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statement ...................................................................................... 1 Argument ....................................................................................... 6 Conclusion ................................................................................... 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Alvarez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1389 (2017) ................ 24 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) ..................... 23 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) ....................... 26 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) ................ 8, 10 Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) ....................... 8, 15 Budagova v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 161 (2019) .............. 24 CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) ........... 18 Coplan v. United States, 571 U.S. 819 (2013) ..................... 17 Fontana v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1022 (2018) .............. 24 Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) ................ 16, 18 Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910) .............................. 16, 18 Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) ........................................................................ 16, 18, 19 Hester v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 509 (2019) .................... 24 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) .................................................................................... 23 John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008).............................................................. 18 Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) .................... 17 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) ............................ 20 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) ................................ 18 Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018) .... 4, 15, 21 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) .................. 8 McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) .................. 17 Petras v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 373 (2018) .................... 24 Sealed Case, In re, 283 F.3d 349 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 891 (2002) ....................................... 13 Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) .............................................................................. 24, 25 United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) .................... 21 United States v. Atilla, 966 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2020) .......... 22 United States v. Carillo, 860 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 12 United States v. Cefaratti, 221 F.3d 502 (3d Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 13 United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 819 (2013) .............. 20 United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) ................... 19 United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 959 (2013) ....................................... 24 United States v. Díaz-Concepción, 860 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 13 United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2015) .......... 12 United States v. Fernandez, 205 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 11 United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) ...... 25, 26 United States v. Herman, No. 19-50830, 2021 WL 1811843 (5th Cir. May 6, 2021) .......................... 22 United States v. Hunter, 618 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 24 United States v. Kamer, 781 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 819 (1986) ....................................... 11 United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958) ....................................... 17 V Cases—Continued: Page United States v. Leahy, 438 F.3d 328 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1071 (2006) ..................................... 25 United States v. Lloyd, 901 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 55 (2019) .............. 12 United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) .................... 22 United States v. Norvell, 729 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 1224 (2014) ........... 15 United States v. Parlato, No. 15-CR-149, 2019 WL 988450 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019) ....................... 22 United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2003) ........ 12 United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2010) ............................................... 12 United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 13 United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) ...................... 7, 15 United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300 (4th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 11 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012) .......................... 23 Constitution, statutes, and rules: U.S. Const.: Amend. V (Due Process Clause) .................................... 11 Amend. VI ........................................................................ 26 Act of June 24, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701 ........................... 18 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A .................................................................. 24 18 U.S.C. 3664(f )(1)(A) .................................................... 24 Rev. Stat. § 5440 (1901) ......................................................... 18 18 U.S.C. 371 ................................................................. passim 18 U.S.C. 1503(a) ................................................................... 21 26 U.S.C. 7201 .......................................................................... 2 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) ..................................................................... 2 VI Statutes and rules—Continued: Page 26 U.S.C. 7212 .................................................................. 20, 21 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) ................................................................... 21 Fed. R. Crim. P.: Rule 11 ..................................................................... passim Rule 11(b)(1)(G) ............................................4, 7, 11, 12, 14 Rule 11(h) ........................................................................... 8 Rule 11 advisory committee’s note (1974 Amendments) ..................................................... 8 Rule 52(b) ......................................................................... 22 Miscellaneous: 1A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (5th ed. 2020) ................................................ 9, 11 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 20-1129 SCOTT PHILLIP FLYNN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-15a) is reported at 969 F.3d 873. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on August 13, 2020. A petition for rehearing was denied on September 17, 2020 (Pet. App. 39a). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on February 11, 2021. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). STATEMENT Petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Minnesota to one count of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and one count of filing a false tax return (1) 2 in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1). Judgment 1. Peti- tioner sought to withdraw his pleas before sentencing; the district court denied his motion. Pet. App. 1a-2a. The court sentenced petitioner to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud
    CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 228 The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 228) CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Item 5 of the Fourth Programme of Law Reform: Criminal Law Laid before Parliament bj the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to sc :tion 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 December 1994 LONDON: 11 HMSO E10.85 net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 A. Background to the report 1. Our work on conspiracy generally 1.2 1 2. Restrictions on charging conspiracy to defraud following the Criminal Law Act 1977 1.8 3 3. The Roskill Report 1.10 4 4. The statutory reversal of Ayres 1.11 4 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 104 1.12 5 6. Developments in the law after publication of Working Paper No 104 1.13 6 7. Our subsequent work on the project 1.14 6 B. A general review of dishonesty offences 1.16 7 C. Summary of our conclusions 1.20 9 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Inchoate Offences Conspiracy, Attempt and Incitement 5 June 1973
    N.B. This is a Working Paper circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views. of the Law Commission. The Law Cominission will be grateful for comments before 1 January 1974. All correspondence should be addressed to: J.C. R. Fieldsend, Law Commission, Conquest Hoiis e, 37/38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. (Tel: 01-242 0861, Ex: 47) The Law Commission Working Paper No 50 Inchoate Offences Conspiracy, Attempt and Incitement 5 June 1973 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 @ Crown copyright 1973 SBN 11 730081 0 THE LAW COMMISSION WORKING PAPER NO. 50 Second Programme, Item XVIII CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW GENERAL PRINCIPLES INCHOATE OFFENCES : CONSPIRACY, ATTEMPT AND INCITEMENT Introduction by the Law Commission 1. The Working Party' assisting the Commission in the examination of the general principles of the criminal law with a view to their codification has prepared this Working Paper on the inchoate offences. It is the fourth in a series' designed as a basis upon which to seek the views of those concerned with the criminal law. In pursuance of - its policy of wide consultation, the Law Commission is publishing the Working Paper and inviting comments upon it. 2. To a greater extent than in previous papers in this series the provisional proposals of the Working Party involve fundamental changes in the law which, we think, will prove much more controversial than those made in the other papers. The suggested limitation of the crime of conspiracy to 1. For membership see p. ix. 2. The others are "The Mental Element in Crime" (W.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Conspiracy to Defraud
    t is Wha CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD A Corruption Offence A Corruption Offence CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Conspiracy to Defraud involves the agreement between two or more people to commit a crime by fraud. Under the Crimes Decree 2009, this criminal offence has three limbs in which the offence can be fulfilled: conspiracy to defraud by causing a loss, or obtaining an advantage, or influencing a public official. In terms of fraud, this could involve two or more people conspiring to commit the offences by various means – for instance, to ‘obtain a gain’, the persons involved could conspire to forge certain documents in order to achieve the gain. ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD A unique feature of this offence is that it comes under the classification of an ‘in- choate’ offence, which basically means that it is a preliminary offence. Because it is a ‘preliminary offence’, it is usually linked with another more substantial crime like forgery and even money laundering. The main element for this crime is the presence of an agreement or conspiracy between two or more persons to commit a crime. It does not matter if the crime itself does not eventuate – if the agreement to commit it is present, than the persons will be guilty of the offence of conspiracy. COMMON PENALTIES FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Conspiracy to Defraud is a criminal offence under the Crimes Decree 2009 and imposes a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The penalties imposed by the Court for this crime range from a suspended sentence to 18 months - 3 years imprisonment, but the sentence itself varies on the perpetrators and their role in the conspiracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Colin Banham Crime
    Colin Banham Crime Colin has over 17 years’ experience both defending and prosecuting in the criminal courts. He has been instructed as a leading Junior, led Junior and acting alone in serious and complex criminal allegations. He regularly defends and prosecutes cases including aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm with intent, violent disorder, drugs conspiracies, robbery and large-scale fraud. Colin is graded by the CPS as a Level 4 Prosecutor and is a member of the Specialist Panels for Fraud (including fiscal fraud) and Serious Year of Call: 1999 Crime (including terrorism). Clerks Colin has extensive experience in serious road traffic offences. He is regularly instructed by insurers to represent defendants, particularly in Senior Practice Manager cases involving serious injury with underlying civil litigation. He accepts Andrew Trotter private instructions in all forms of motoring offences either directly or by referral. Chief Executive & Director of Clerking RECENT CASES Tony McDaid R v RS, DB & KM (2016): Instructed by the NCA in a multi-handed Contact a Clerk conspiracy to supply Class A drugs amounting to £50.4m. The case Tel: +44 (0) 845 210 5555 was conducted against a silk and two leading juniors. Fax: +44 (0) 121 606 1501 [email protected] R v KS-R (2016): Case involving allegations of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. R v CP (2016): Successfully defending a middle-aged lady alleged to have defrauded a pension scheme. R v ZN (2016): Defending a male alleged to have conspired to import a large amount of Khat into the UK. R v AB, PB & AE (2016): Prosecuting an allegation of conspiracy to supply cannabis amounting to almost £500,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States Petition for Writ of Certiorari
    18--7897 TN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAIET FILED ' LARAEL OWENS., Larael K Owens 07 MARIA ZUCKER, MICHEL P MCDANIEL, POLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MARK MCMANN, TAMESHA SADDLERS. RESPONDENT(S) Case No. 18-12480 Case No. 8:18-cv-00552-JSM-JSS THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Larael K Owens 2 Summer lake way Savannah GA 31407 (229)854-4989 RECE11VED 2019 I OFFICE OF THE CLERK I FLSUPREME COURT, U.sJ Z-L QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.Does a State Judges have authority to preside over a case when He/She has a conflicts of interest Does absolute immunity apply when ajudge has acted criminally under color of law and without jurisdiction, as well as actions taken in an administrative capacity to influence cases? 2.Does Eleventh Amendment immunity apply when officers of the court have violated 31 U.S. Code § 3729 and the state has refused to provide any type of declaratory relief? 3.Does Title IV-D, Section 458 of the Social Security Act violate the United States Constitution due to the incentives it creates for the court to willfully violate civil rights of parties in child custody and support cases? 4.Has the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit erred in basing its decision on the rulings of a Federal judge who has clearly and willfully violated 28 U.S. Code § 455. .Can a state force a bill of attainder on a natural person in force you into slavery 6.Can a judge have Immunity for their non judicial activities who knowingly violate civil rights 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Crimes Handbook
    TAX CRIMES HANDBOOK Office of Chief Counsel Criminal Tax Division 2009 PREFACE The goal in developing this handbook was to provide a resource for Criminal Tax Attorneys to use in the course of advising their client on criminal tax matters, and in evaluating recommendations for prosecution. This handbook is not intended to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits on any person. It is not intended to have the force of law, or of a statement of Internal Revenue Service policy. See, United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979). _________/s/______________ EDWARD F. CRONIN Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax) Internal Revenue Service This Page is Blank – NO BORDER CHAPTER 1 TITLE 26 TAX VIOLATIONS SECTION 1 TAX EVASION - I.R.C. § 7201 1-1.01 Statutory Language 2 1-1.02 Generally 2 1-1.03 Evasion of Assessment 4 [1] Elements of the Offense 4 [2] The Attempt 4 [3] Additional Tax Due and Owing 6 [4] Willfulness 9 [5] Venue 13 [6] Statute of Limitations 14 1-1.04 Evasion of Payment 15 [1] Elements of the Offense 15 [2] The Attempt 15 [3] Additional Tax Due and Owing 17 [4] Willfulness 17 [5] Venue 18 [6] Statute of Limitations 18 1-1.05 Collateral Estoppel 18 1-1.06 Lesser Included Offenses 19 1-1.07 Table of Cases 20 i CHAPTER 1 TITLE 26 TAX VIOLATIONS SECTION 2 WILLFUL FAILURE TO COLLECT OR PAY OVER TAX I.R.C. § 7202 1-2.01 Statutory Language 30 1-2.02 Generally 30 1-2.03 Elements of the Offense 30 [1] Duty to Collect and/or to Truthfully Account for and Pay Over 31 [2] Failure to Collect or Truthfully Account for and Pay Over 31 [3] Willfulness 31 1-2.04 Motor Fuel Excise Tax Prosecutions 33 1-2.05 Venue 33 1-2.06 Statute of Limitations 33 1-2.07 Table of Cases 35 ii CHAPTER 1 TITLE 26 TAX VIOLATIONS SECTION 3 FAILURE TO FILE, SUPPLY INFORMATION OR PAY TAX - I.R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 21- In The Supreme Court of the United States SCOTT PHILLIP FLYNN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IAN M. COMISKY Counsel of Record PATRICK J. EGAN FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2000 Market Street, 20th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 299-2000 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the due process clause of the United States Constitution, as discussed in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) and more recent decisions of this Court, requires discussion in open court of the elements of an 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein Conspiracy) offense to advise the defendant of the nature of the charges against him before a guilty plea is accepted. II. Whether the requirement for a nexus between a particular administrative proceeding and a taxpayer’s conduct is necessary to save the constitutionality of a conviction under an 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein Conspiracy) after this Court’s decision in Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018). III. Whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial to determine the amount of restitution under either the Sixth or Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner Scott Phillip Flynn was the defendant in the district court and the appellant in the Eighth Circuit. The respondent is the United States of America.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Criminal Conspiracy Todd R
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 1998 Federal Criminal Conspiracy Todd R. Russell O. Carter Snead Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Todd R. Russell & O. C. Snead, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 35 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 739 (1997-1998). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/20 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 739 II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE ............................... 741 A. Agreem ent ........................................ 742 B. Illegal Goal ....................................... 745 C. Knowledge, Intent, and Participation.................... 747 D. OvertA ct ........................................ 750 III. D EFENSES ........................................... 751 A. Statute of Limitations ................................ 751 B. Insufficiency of the Indictment ......................... 752 C. Variance ......................................... 753 D. Multiplicitous Indictment ............................. 754 E. Insuffi cient Evidence ................................ 755 F. Withdrawal ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Obstruction of Congress: an Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Laws Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities
    Obstruction of Congress: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Laws Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities Updated November 5, 2010 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22784 Obstruction of Congress Summary Obstruction of justice is the frustration of governmental purposes by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. It is a federal crime. In fact, it is several crimes. Obstruction prosecutions regularly involve charges under several statutory provisions. Federal obstruction of justice laws are legion; too many for even passing reference to all of them in a single report. The general obstruction of justice provisions are six: 18 U.S.C. 1512 (tampering with federal witnesses), 1513 (retaliating against federal witnesses), 1503 (obstruction of pending federal court proceedings), 1505 (obstruction of pending congressional or federal administrative proceedings), 371 (conspiracy), and contempt. Other than Section 1503, each prohibits obstruction of certain congressional activities. In addition to these, there are a host of other statutes that penalize obstruction by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. Moreover, regardless of the offense for which an individual is convicted, his sentence may be enhanced as a consequence of any obstruction of justice for which he is responsible, if committed during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing for the offense of his conviction. The enhancement may result in an increase in his term of imprisonment by as much as four years. This is an abridged version of CRS Report RL34304, Obstruction of Congress: a Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities, by Charles Doyle, without the footnotes, quotations, or citations to authority found in the longer report.
    [Show full text]
  • Inchoate Offences: Conspiracy, Attempt and Incitement in 2010, The
    Inchoate offences: conspiracy, attempt and incitement In 2010, the Commission published its Report on Inchoate Offences (LRC 99-2010) (3rd Programme of Law Reform, Project 19), which followed from its 2008 Consultation Paper on Inchoate Offences (LRC CP 48-2008). The Report contains the Commission’s final recommendations for reform in the law concerning incitement, conspiracy and attempt, together with a draft Criminal Law (Inchoate Offences) Bill. Incitement, conspiracy and attempt are inchoate offences because they criminalise conduct which may be described as working towards the commission of a particular offence. For example, the complete offence of murder requires the wrongful killing of a human being; whereas the offence of attempted murder caters for cases where the accused tries, but fails, to kill the victim. Similarly, the offences of conspiracy to murder and incitement to murder provide for cases where the accused has made an agreement to kill (conspiracy), or has sought to persuade someone else to kill (incitement). Prosecutions for incitements, conspiracies and attempts are relatively infrequent compared to prosecutions for the offences to which they relate, but charges such as incitement to murder (usually called solicitation), conspiracy to defraud and attempted robbery remain an important part of the criminal law. Among the key recommendations in the Commission’s Report are: On conspiracy: • only agreements to commit a criminal offence should be criminal conspiracies. This would be a significant reform of current law. At present the crime of conspiracy includes agreements to commit civil as well as criminal wrongs. • abolition of the vague offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, conspiracy to effect a public mischief and conspiracy to outrage public decency.
    [Show full text]
  • Mail and Wire Fraud: a Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law
    Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law Updated February 11, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41930 SUMMARY R41930 Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of February 11, 2019 Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle The mail and wire fraud statutes are exceptionally broad. Their scope has occasionally given the Senior Specialist in courts pause. Nevertheless, prosecutions in their name have brought to an end schemes that have American Public Law bilked victims out of millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars. The statutes proscribe (1) causing the use of the mail or wire communications, including email; (2) in conjunction with a scheme to intentionally defraud another of money or property; (3) by means of a material deception. The offenses, along with attempts or conspiracies to commit them, carry a term of imprisonment of up to 30 years in some cases, followed by a term of supervised release. Offenders also face the prospect of fines, orders to make restitution, and forfeiture of their property. The mail and wire fraud statutes overlap with a surprising number of other federal criminal statutes. Conduct that supports a prosecution under the mail or wire fraud statutes will often support prosecution under one or more other criminal provision(s). These companion offenses include (1) those that use mail or wire fraud as an element of a separate offense, like racketeering or money laundering; (2) those that condemn fraud on some jurisdictional basis other than use of the mail or wire communications, like those that outlaw defrauding the federal government or federally insured banks; and (3) those that proscribe other deprivations of honest services (i.e., bribery and kickbacks), like the statutes that ban bribery of federal officials or in connection with federal programs.
    [Show full text]