Document: 544 U.S. 696 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLPv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-368. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 27, 2005. Decided May 31, As Enron Corporation's financial difficulties became public, petitioner, Enron's auditor, instructed its employees to destroy documents pursuant document retention policy. Petitioner was indicted under 18 U. S. C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B), which make it a crime "knowingly . corruptly persuad[e] another person with intent cause" that "withhold" from, or "alter" for use in, an "official proceeding." The jury returned guilty verdict, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding District Court's instructions properly conveyed meaning "corruptly persuades" proceeding" in § 1512(b); need not find any consciousness wrongdoing order convict; there no reversible error. Held: failed convey elements "corrup[t] persua[sion]" conviction 1512(b). Pp. 703-708. (a) This traditional restraint assessing federal criminal statutes' reach, see, e. g., States v. Aguilar, 515 593, 600, is particularly appropriate here, where act underlying conviction— "persua[sion]"—is by itself innocuous. Even "persuad[ing]" "with testimony from Government inherently malign. Under ordinary circumstances, wrongful manager instruct his comply valid policy, even though part, created keep certain information others, including Government. Thus, 1512(b)'s phrase key what may lawfully be done situation presented here. suggests "knowingly" does modify persuades," but how statute most naturally reads. "[K]nowledge" are normally associated awareness, understanding, consciousness, "corrupt" "corruptly" wrongful, immoral, depraved, evil. Joining these meanings together makes sense both linguistically statutory scheme. Only persons conscious can said persuad[e]." And limiting criminality persuaders their sensibly allows 1512(b) reach only those level culpability usually required impose liability. See supra, at 602. 703-706. (b) requisite wrongdoing. Indeed, striking little required. For example, told that, if petitioner honestly sincerely believed conduct lawful, could convict. also diluted such covered innocent conduct. based instruction on Pattern Jury Instruction 1503, defined as dishonestly, specific subvert undermine integrity" proceeding. However, court agreed Government's insistence excluding "dishonestly" adding term "impede" "subvert undermine," so convict found intended "subvert, undermine, impede" governmental factfinding suggesting they enforce These changes were significant. "[D]ishonest[y]" longer necessary finding guilt, enough have simply "impede[d]" ability. "Impede" has broader connotations than "subvert" "undermine," many do incorporate "corrupt[ness]" all. dictionary definition "impede," anyone who innocently persuades withhold "get[s] way progress of" With regard conduct, did work whatsoever. led believe nexus between "persua[sion]" particular In resisting element, relies 1512(e)(1), states official proceeding "need pending about instituted time offense." It is, however, quite thing say foreseen. A corrup[t] persaude[r]" cannot someone others shred policy when he contemplation might material. Cf. 599-600. 706-708. 374 F. 3d 281, reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. Maureen E. Mahoney argued cause petitioner. her briefs Alexandra A. Shapiro, J. Scott Ballenger, Charles Rothfeld. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben him brief Acting Clement, Assistant Attorney Keeney, Kannon K. Shanmugam, Sangita Rao, Andrew Weissmann, Matthew W. Friedrich.* CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST 1 public 2001, Arthur Andersen LLP, this action made violating (2)(A) (B). sections us[e] intimidation physical force, threate[n], proceeding."1 Appeals affirmed. We hold 1512(b), therefore reverse. 2 Corporation, during 1990's, switched business operation natural gas pipelines energy conglomerate, move accompanied aggressive accounting practices rapid growth. audited publicly filed statements provided internal audit consulting services it. Petitioner's "engagement team" headed David Duncan. Beginning 2000, performance began suffer, and, 2001 wore on, worsened.2 On August 14, Jeffrey Skilling, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), unexpectedly resigned. Within days, Sherron Watkins, senior accountant Enron, warned Kenneth Lay, newly reappointed CEO, "implode wave scandals." Brief 2. She likewise informed Duncan Michael Odom, one petitioner's partners had supervisory responsibility over Duncan, looming problems. 3 28, article Wall Street Journal suggested improprieties SEC opened informal investigation. By early September, formed "crisis-response" team, included Nancy Temple, in-house counsel.3 October 8, retained outside counsel represent litigation arise matter. next day, Temple discussed other counsel. Her notes meeting reflect "some investigation" "highly probable." Id., 3. 4 10, Odom spoke general training attended 89 employees, 10 engagement team. urged everyone firm's policy.4 He added: "`[I]f it's destroyed course [the] normal that's great. [W]e've followed our own whatever been interest somebody gone irretrievable.'" 286 (CA5 2004). 12, entered matter into computer, designating "Type Potential Claim" "Professional Practice — Government/Regulatory Inv[estigation]." App. JA-127. e-mailed "`remin[d] team documentation policy.'" 6. 5 16, announced third quarter results. That release disclosed $1.01 billion charge earnings.5 following notified letter investigation requested documents. 19, forwarded copy 6 same sent e-mail member experts attached 20, crisis-response held conference call, "[m]ake sure follow [document] policy." 7 (brackets original). 23, CEO Lay declined answer questions call analysts because "potential lawsuits, well inquiry." Ibid. After met them should ensure members complying Another all followed, distributed comply. These, smaller meetings, substantial destruction paper electronic 26, circulated New York Times discussing SEC's response Enron. His commented "the problems just beginning we will cross hairs. marketplace going pressure force tough." 8. 30, formal 8 Throughout period, continued, despite reservations some managers.6 November would issue comprehensive restatement earnings assets. Also served subpoenas records. 9, Duncan's secretary stated: "Per Dave— No more shredding. officially documents." 10. bankruptcy less month later. fired later pleaded witness tampering. 9 March 2002, Southern Texas count indictment alleged "did knowingly, intentionally persuade persons, wit: [petitioner's] alter proceedings, namely: regulatory proceedings investigations." JA-139. trial followed. When case went jury, body deliberated seven days then declared deadlocked. "Allen charge," Allen States, 164 492 (1896), after three deliberation, verdict. denied motion judgment acquittal. 3d, 284. proceeding"; wrongdoing; Because split authority regarding granted certiorari.7 543 1042 (2005). 11 Chapter 73 Title Code provides sanctions obstruct justice. Sections part tampering provisions, provide relevant part: 12 "Whoever knowingly uses threatens, person, attempts so, engages misleading toward induce testimony, record, document, object, [or] alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal object impair object's integrity availability shall fined title imprisoned ten years, both." 13 case, attention focused means persuad[e]" 14 "We traditionally exercised statute, out deference prerogatives Congress, Dowling 473 207 (1985), concern `a fair warning given world language common understand, law intends line passed,' McBoyle 283 25, 27 (1931)." 600 (1995). 15 Such conviction—"persua[sion]"—is malign.8 Consider, instance, mother son invoke right against compelled self-incrimination, see Const., Amdt. 5, wife husband disclose marital confidences, Trammel 445 40 (1980). 16 Nor necessarily corrupt attorney "persuad[e]" client Upjohn Co. 449 383 (1981), justified withholding attorney-client privilege Internal Revenue Service (IRS). id., 395. suggest "persuade[d]" take step acted wrongfully, surely IRS' hands. 17 "Document policies," getting hands Government, business. generally Chase, To Shred Not Shred: Document Retention Policies Federal Obstruction Justice Statutes, Ford. Corp. & Fin. L. 721 (2003). course, circumstances. Acknowledging point, parties largely word Section punishes persuad[ing]" another, another. (Emphasis added.) mens rea list acts "uses persuades." recognized similar least applies immediately follow, down chain. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 64, 68 (1994) (recognizing "most grammatical reading" 2252(a)(1) (2) "suggests `knowingly' modifies surrounding verbs: transports, ships, receives, distributes, reproduces"); Liparota 471 419 (1985). "questionable whether Congress employ inelegant formulation `knowingly persuades.'" 35, n. 18. Long experience taught us share doubts score, must interpret written. 19 pointed interpretation corruptly" guide here.9 event, terms clear answer. Bailey 516 137, 144-145 consciousness. Black's Law Dictionary 888 (8th ed. 2004) (hereinafter Black's); Webster's Third International 1252-1253 (1993) 3d); American Heritage English Language 725 (1981) Am. Hert.). "Corrupt" 371; 512; Hert. 299-300. here "culpability require liability." S., 602; 426. 20 outer limits element explored "even [petitioner] you guilty." JA-213. JA-212. 21 vigorously disputed "corruptly." 1503. pattern "`knowingly integrity'" 3, (emphasis deleted). insisted undermine." (internal quotation marks omitted). objections, 22 type "dishonest[y]" conceded oral argument, "`[i]mpede'" "`subvert'" "`[u]ndermine,'" Tr. Oral Arg. 38, defines "to interfere get "hold up" "detract from." 1132. definition, 23 infirm reason. They proceeding.10 heavily offense," 24 faced supra. Respondent Aguilar lied Bureau Investigation agent convicted "`corruptly endeavor[ing] influence, obstruct, impede [a] grand investigation'" 599. All shown uttered false investigating "who testify before jury." 600. 1503 something specifically, "nexus" obstructive "[I]f defendant lacks knowledge actions likely affect judicial proceeding," explained, "he obstruct." 25 reasons, flawed important respects. reversed, remanded further consistent opinion. 26 ordered. Notes: * Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Institute Certified Public Accountants Kelly M. Hnatt Richard I. Miller; Council Defense Lawyers Lewis Liman; Washington Legal Foundation et al. Carter G. Phillips, Virginia Seitz, Daniel Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar. Robert N. Weiner Joshua Dratel National Association Criminal amicus curiae. refer 2000 version since amended During time, own. June settlement agreement Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) related Waste Management, Inc. settlement, paid massive fine. censured enjoined committing violations securities laws. July complaint alleging Sunbeam lead partner named problem involved "Raptors," special purpose entities used engage "off-balance-sheet" activities. allowed "aggregate" Raptors purposes reflected positive return. was, words experts, "black-and-white" violation Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. called single central file, "should contain supporting work." JA-45. stated "[i]n cases threatened litigation, destroyed."Id., JA-44. separately "advised engagement, destroyed. Policy Statement 780—Notification Litigation." JA-65 780 set forth "notification" procedures whenever "professional practice personnel commenced, judged occur, professional investigations involve commenced likely." JA-29 JA-30. characterized "non-recurring." 6, 4. expressed characterization refused release. wrote "suggested deleting concluded misleading." JA-95 John Riley, saw shredding "this wouldn't best guys bunch stuff." 9. Stulb, forensics investigator meeting, picked up "smoking gun" written it, "we don't this."Ibid. Stulb cautioned maintain needed advice Compare,e. Shotts, 145 1289, 1301 (CA11 1998), Farrell, 126 484, 489-490 (CA3 1997). 1512(b)(2) addresses 1512(b)(1) testimony. 1512(b)(3) "persuade[rs]" intend prevent communication enforcement officer judge information" relating two obstruction 1505, But provisions lack modifier "knowingly," making analogy inexact disagree suggestion argument preserved subject plain-error review failure Rule Procedure 30(d). plainly for, objected instructions' of, requirement. See,e.g., Record 425 (arguing explaining "it insufficient government show hypothetical future proceeding"); 931-932, 938; 4339-4345 (May 2002). doing, reasonably relied Shively, 927 2d 804, 812-813 1991). Although proposed, mirror requirement now proposes, sufficient satisfy Appeals, challenging concreteness defendant's expectation[s] 298 2004); Williams, 504 36, 41-42 (1992). address, preserve, inquiries statute. ibid.

Category: 0