1 We note that Wortman’s indictment used the word “and,”

though the statute uses the word “or.” The discrepancy has no

bearing on our decision, however, because it only increased

the government’s burden of proof.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 06-4168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

AMANDA WORTMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 05-CR-40024-002-JPG—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.

____________

ARGUED APRIL 6, 2007—DECIDED JUNE 8, 2007

____________

Before POSNER, FLAUM, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Amanda

Wortman of knowingly altering, destroying, and mutilating a tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct,

and influence the investigation of a matter within the

jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.1

 She claims that the

government’s evidence against her was insufficient. For
2 No. 06-4168

the following reasons, the Court affirms Wortman’s

conviction.

I. Background

Wortman owes her conviction in this case to a former

boyfriend, Ryan McDonald, who the FBI, in February

2005, suspected of possessing child pornography. She

became involved in the investigation after the FBI discovered that McDonald had been using Wortman’s mother’s

computer to view illegal images, and three FBI agents

arrived at Wortman’s mother’s home wanting to search

her computer’s hard-drive.

Wortman drove to her mother’s home as soon as she

learned that the agents were there, and the agents began

questioning her about McDonald’s interest in child pornography. She told them that she tried to stay out of that

part of McDonald’s life but provided a handwritten statement that said,

We have had discussions in the past about thoughts

that he has had about wanting to do certain activities

with 11-12 yr olds when he was like 14-15 yrs old . . . .

We have discussed on several occassions [sic] my

recurring problems or feelings that he may still have

about wanting to any [sic] activities with children and

he has told me that he would never touch his daughter

or any other child in any inappropriate manner.

Later that day, Wortman took the agents to the residence that she shared with McDonald, and McDonald

showed up about ten minutes later. He admitted to the

agents that he had accessed child pornography from the

Internet and gave the agents computer discs and printed

pages that contained child pornography. He also told

them that he had lent three compact discs (CDs), one

containing child pornography, to Stanley Tuttle, a man
No. 06-4168 3

who lived above Wortman’s place of employment. The

agents told McDonald not to tamper with, retrieve, or

destroy any of the CDs that he had lent to Tuttle.

After the agents finished their discussion with

McReynolds, they drove to Tuttle’s home. By this time,

Wortman was back at work, so the agents asked her to

phone Tuttle’s residence. Tuttle was not in his apartment,

however, so the agents instructed Wortman not to do

anything with the CDs and drove off.

When Wortman came home from work, she and McDonald spoke about the day’s events and discussed going to

Tuttle’s residence to retrieve the CD that contained child

pornography. McDonald said that he knew he was not

supposed to do anything with the CD, but “really didn’t

want to leave it there either.” Eventually, Wortman and

McDonald decided to disobey the agents’ instructions

and drove to Tuttle’s residence. McDonald called Rebecca

Neville, Tuttle’s girlfriend, and asked her to open the

door to Tuttle’s apartment. He told her that the FBI had

visited him and that he needed to retrieve a CD from the

apartment.

Inside Tuttle’s apartment, McDonald found the three

CDs in question and determined which one contained

child pornography. At trial, he testified that the following occurred once he found the CD that he was looking for:

I put the other two [CDs] in my pocket, and I took that

one and I said, “Okay. This is the one.” I said, “I don’t

want it.” And I flexed it in my hand like I was going to

break it, but I was afraid it would break and cut my

hand so I said, “I don’t want it.” And I wiped it off. And

then Amanda took it and said, “I will show you how it’s

done.” And she snapped it in her fingers.

As he left Tuttle’s apartment, McDonald told Neville to

get rid of the broken CD because he did not want or need

it.
4 No. 06-4168

At trial, Wortman admitted breaking the CD, but

claimed that the agents never told her not to touch the

CDs in Tuttle’s apartment. She also testified that she

broke the CD because she was upset and wanted to leave

the apartment as quickly as possible. She said that there

was marijuana in Tuttle’s apartment and that she was

afraid that if the FBI agents discovered her there, they

would suspect her of being involved with drugs.

The day after Wortman broke the CD, the agents spoke

with Tuttle. He told them that there was a broken CD in

his home, and the agents told him to take it to the local

sheriff’s office. He picked up the pieces of the CD and gave

them to Neville, who did as the agents instructed.

A week later, Neville assisted law enforcement by

participating in a recorded phone conversation with

Wortman. During the call, Neville told Wortman that the

FBI had been asking her why Wortman broke the CD.

Wortman told Neville to tell the agents that she did not

know why Wortman broke the CD or that Wortman

accidentally stepped on it.

After a two-day trial, the jury found Wortman guilty, and

the district court sentenced her to one year and one day

in prison.

II. Analysis

“Defendants challenging the quantum of evidence

supporting a jury verdict face a daunting task.” United

States v. Luster, 480 F.3d 551, 555 (7th Cir. 2007). When

assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court

draws all reasonable inferences in the prosecution’s

favor and affirms if any rational jury could have found

the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See

United States v. Hicks, 368 F.3d 801, 804-05 (7th Cir.

2004). Despite this difficult standard, Wortman argues
No. 06-4168 5

that no jury reasonably could have found that she intended to obstruct the FBI’s investigation when she broke

the CD.

Title 18, Section 1519 of the United States Code reads

as follows:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in

any record, document, or tangible object with the

intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the

jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United

States . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned

not more than 20 years, or both.

Wortman argues that she could not have formed the

requisite intent to obstruct the FBI’s investigation because McDonald was the center of the investigation and

because he took the lead role in their plan to hunt down

the CD and destroy it. She notes that it was McDonald’s

idea to look for the CD, that McDonald searched for the

CD once they arrived at Tuttle’s apartment, and that

McDonald was the first person who attempted to break

the CD. She further explains that she never intended to

impede the FBI’s investigation and that she only broke

the CD because she was frustrated and wanted to leave

Tuttle’s apartment.

Wortman’s argument manifests her confusion about the

standard we apply when reviewing the sufficiency of the

evidence. We do not reverse a conviction if a reasonable

jury could have acquitted a defendant, we only reverse if

the jury was obliged to acquit the defendant. See United

States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655, 664 (7th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Harris, 271 F.3d 690, 704 (7th Cir. 2001). It is

true, in this case, that if the jury believed Wortman’s

testimony, it may have concluded that she did not intend

to impede the FBI’s investigation. Perhaps, as Wortman
6 No. 06-4168

2 Despite Wortman’s protestations to the contrary, this conversation was also evidence of her intent at the time she broke

the CD. See United States v. Ryan, 213 F.3d 347, 350-51 (7th Cir.

2000) (holding that a defendant’s attempt to conceal her crime

is circumstantial evidence of her intent at the time she committed the act).

maintains, she broke the CD because she wanted to leave

Tuttle’s apartment or because she was frustrated. Maybe

her act had nothing to do with the FBI and everything

to do with her emotional state at the time.

On the other hand, the circumstantial evidence could tell

a different story. At trial, the government offered testimony that Wortman broke the CD after learning that the

FBI suspected her boyfriend of illegally possessing child

pornography and after FBI agents explicitly told her not

to touch the CDs. It also offered evidence that Wortman

accompanied McDonald to Tuttle’s apartment knowing

that he wanted to destroy incriminating evidence. Finally,

the government played a recorded conversation in which

Wortman asked Neville to lie to FBI agents in an attempt

to conceal what Wortman had done.2

This course of events suggests a woman fixed on keeping

her boyfriend out of prison, even if it meant destroying

evidence. Though Wortman characterizes her act as

something done “in the heat of the moment,” a reasonable

jury could, and did, disagree. Consequently, the evidence

was sufficient to support her conviction.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court AFFIRMS Wortman’s

conviction.
No. 06-4168 7

EVANS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Amanda Wortman

made several mistakes, but her biggest, by far, was getting

mixed up with Ryan McDonald. It seems reasonable to

suspect that most women want to steer clear of guys who

possess kiddie porn and harbored “thoughts . . . about

wanting to do certain things with children.” But not

Wortman. And to top it off, McDonald was a wimp. He

was “afraid” to break the CD because, as he said, he

feared it might “cut my hand.” If having poor judgment in

picking a boyfriend was a crime, Wortman would be

guilty as charged. But that is not what the government, in

what to me looks like a poor exercise of its vast prosecutorial discretion, charged her with. Because I believe the

evidence failed, as a matter of law, to demonstrate that

Wortman had the requisite intent to violate 18 U.S.C.

§ 1519 when, in the heat of the moment, she snatched the

CD from McDonald and did what he was too afraid to do,

I would reverse her conviction.

I think the evidence falls short of establishing that

Wortman intended to “willfully destroy evidence or impede

a federal investigation” by what she did, and under the

circumstances she did it, in this case. McDonald, not

Wortman, decided to go to Tuttle’s apartment to look

for the CDs and took back roads so he would not be

followed. McDonald, not Wortman, knocked on Josh’s door

to use Josh’s phone to call Becky to come let him in to

Tuttle’s apartment. McDonald, not Wortman, searched

through Tuttle’s apartment looking for the CDs. McDonald, not Wortman, attempted to review the contents of the

CDs on the computer and DVD in order to figure out which

CD he wanted to destroy. McDonald, not Wortman, made

the initial attempt to break the CD. It was McDonald, not

Wortman, who was attempting to “willfully destroy

evidence or impede a federal investigation.” Wortman, as

I see the evidence, did not form any intent related to the

FBI investigation of McDonald. Her conduct was in the
8 No. 06-4168

heat of the moment related to McDonald’s specific intent

to find and destroy the CD. McDonald used Wortman, in

much the same way as he might have used a hammer, to

accomplish his goal. Wortman’s intent, it seems out of

frustration, was to simply do something her wimpy

boyfriend was too afraid to do himself because he didn’t

want to get hurt.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—6-8-07