When the FBI Comes Calling…®

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (Continued)

18 U.S.C. § 1509 (2007).

The Crime
Under section 1509, it is a crime for a person, by threats or force, to

  • willfully
    • prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, or
    • attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with,
  • the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States.

The Punishment
A violation of section 1509 can be punished by

  • a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Case Law Interpreting Section 1509
To convict someone for a violation of section 1509, the government must introduce evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant had actual knowledge that a court order existed at the time of his alleged activities. United States v. Griffin, 525 F.2d 710, 712-13 (1st Cir. 1975). Where nothing indicated that the members of a crowd knew or realized that the policy of busing that it was protesting emanated from a federal court, evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under section 1509. Id. at 713.

18 U.S.C. § 1510 (2007).

The Crime
Under section 1510, the following are crimes.

  • Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator; 18 U.S.C. § 1510(a);
  • Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished to the grand jury in response to that subpoena, Id. § 1510(b)(1)
  • Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies-
    • a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a grand jury subpoena; Id. § 1510(b)(2)(A)
    • any other person named in that subpoena; Id. § 1510(b)(2)(B)
  • about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished to the grand jury in response to that subpoena, Id. § 1510(b)(2)
  • Whoever-
    • acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, id. § 1510(d)(1)(A)
    • is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business, Id. § 1510(d)(1)(B),
  • with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, Id. § 1510(d)(1).

The Punishment
The punishment for violating section 1510(b)(2)

  • a fine, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

For all other violations of section 1510, the punishment is

  • a fine imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

Case Law Interpreting Section 1510
The elements that must be proven in a case brought under section 1510 are

  • Willful endeavor by means of certain actions to prevent communication of information relative to violation of any criminal statute of the United States and
  • The Criminal investigator must be an individual authorized by a department or agency of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of all prosecution for a violation of the criminal laws of the United States. United States v. Williams, 470 F.2d 1339, 1342 (8th Cir. 1973).

To violate section 1510(a) all a defendant needs to believe is that a witness may give information to federal officials and then prevent that communication. United States v. Hunt, 372 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, an actual investigation does not need to be taking place for a charge under section 1010 to be brought. United States v, Lippman, 492 F.2d 314, 317 (6th Cir. 1974).

Finally, the term "endeavor" requires less evidentiary proof than the term "attempt." United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366 (8th Cir. 1988).

Back to Practice Areas