Opinion ID: 45022
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Obstruction of Justice (Counts 44 and 45)

Text: DeAngelis argues that the pretrial services officer to whom he gave false statements was an investigating agent beyond the reach of the obstruction of justice statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1503; United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600, 115 S. Ct. 2357, 2362 (1995). We disagree. We have explained that the critical element, under section 1503, is a nexus “in time, causation, or logic” between the obstructive act and the judicial proceeding. United States v. Vaghela, 169 F.3d 729, 733 (11th Cir. 1999). We must consider whether the defendant’s actions “would have ‘the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice’ in a way that is more than merely ‘speculative.’” Id. at 734 (quoting Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 601, 115 S. Ct. at 2363). The issue then is whether a bond hearing is a “judicial proceeding” for the purposes of section 1503. Because of its constitutional importance and the degree of judicial involvement, the bail proceeding is part of the “administration of justice” within the meaning of section 1503. Our precedent established long ago that “a bail hearing is a judicial proceeding,” as opposed to an administrative or “housekeeping” proceeding, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which 9 proscribes making materially false statements to agents of the government except in judicial proceedings. United States v. Abrahams, 604 F.2d 386, 393 (5th Cir. 1979). “The right to be free of excessive bail appears explicitly in the Bill of Rights. . . . Bail may be set only by a judicial officer. The determination of bail requires a judicial decision of which conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant.” Id. The pretrial services officer testified that false information about one’s income and assets submitted in the course of a bail investigation has a probable effect on the outcome of the bail proceeding, and DeAngelis does not dispute that his statements were false. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for obstruction of justice.