Source: http://kyfederalcriminallawyer.com/federal-obstruction-of-justice-charges/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:15:10+00:00

Document:
Frequently, when prosecutors are unable to successfully convict an individual of a certain crime, they will charge that person with federal obstruction of justice charges instead. In Martha Stewart’s case, for instance, Stewart was found guilty of obstruction of justice, although prosecutors initially intended to charge her with insider trading. This page will discuss three federal obstruction of justice charges statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 , 18 U.S.C. § 1509 and 18 U.S.C. § 1510, although there are many more not noted here. DON’T RISK A FEDERAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGE, CONTACT KENTUCKY FEDERAL CRIMINAL ATTORNEY J. CLARK BAIRD BEFORE TALKING TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS!
It is also a violation for a person to attempt to do any of the previous, or solicit another to do so.
a fine, imprisonment for not more than 5 years or, both.
a fine, imprisonment for not more than 8 years, or both.
A violation of the obstruction of justice statutes, including section 1505, can occur even if the “corrupt” behavior is not per se illegal in and of itself. See United States v. Mitchell, 877 F.2d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 1973). For a defendant to be found guilty of a violation of section 1505 for acting corruptly, it is necessary that the defendant’s acts were performed with the intent to obstruct the administration of law. See United States v. Abrams, 427 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1970). The specific intent required for a conviction for obstruction of justice under section 1505 is that he acts “corruptly”; in other words, the act must be committed with the purpose of obstructing justice. United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529 536-37 (9th Cir. 1988). Concealing documents falls within this definition, as does submitting false documents in response to an IRS subpoena. Id. See also United States v. Tallant, 407 F. Supp. 878, 888 (N.D. Ga. 1975) (presentation of falsified records to the Securities and Exchange Commission constituted violation of section 1505 regardless or whether the falsification occurred prior to the commencement of the proceeding). In some instances, evasive answers falls within the category of corrupt of false means. See United States v. Alo, 439 F.2d 751 754 (2d Cir. 1971).
the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States.
a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
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.
Under section 1510, the following are crimes.
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).
a fine, imprisonment for not more than 1year, or both.
a fine imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
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).
Avoid federal obstruction of justice charges by calling us first!!! DO NOT TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS OR ALLOW THEM TO SEARCH! EXERCISE YOUR SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND DEMAND TO SPEAK TO YOUR LAWYER!! Contact Louisville, Kentucky federal criminal defense attorney J. Clark Baird immediately for assistance: (502) 583-3388 or clark@jclarkbaird.com or After Hours 24/7 at (502) 797-4625!

References: § 1505
 § 1509
 § 1510
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1510
 v. 
 v.