Opinion ID: 766255
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Obstruction of Justice Conviction

Text: 35 The federal obstruction of justice statute criminalizes one who by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice. . . . 18 U.S.C.A. § 1503 (West Supp. 1999). The Supreme Court has characterized the aforementioned part of § 1503 as a general omnibus clause that serves as a catchall, prohibiting persons from endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 598 (1995). We have held that to convict under § 1503, the government must prove that there was a judicial proceeding underway that the defendant's actions were intended to obstruct, and a grand jury investigation is such a proceeding. United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365, 1370 (6th Cir. 1994). The government charged Defendant with a violation of § 1503 in connection with his attempt to influence the testimony of Pearce. Defendant argues the government failed to present sufficient evidence of a § 1503 violation because the government failed to show that any actions by Defendant impacted Pearce's grand jury testimony. Again, we disagree. 36 The government need not show that the defendant succeeded in his attempt to interfere; a mere endeavor suffices. Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 599 (citing United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143 (1921)). Defendant's argument is therefore misplaced, as the government needed only to prove that he attempted to influence Pearce's testimony. At trial, the government introduced the testimony of Pearce herself, who stated that Defendant called her twice from jail and told her that she did not know anything and did not see anything. (Appellee's Br. at 32.) Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government with respect to Count 10, we find that the government presented sufficient evidence of an endeavor by Defendant to influence Pearce's testimony. Therefore, the government presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt.