Opinion ID: 222920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Foreseeability of an Official Proceeding

Text: Conviction under § 1512(c)(1) also required proof that Lamb destroyed the evidence with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. Interpreting this provision in Arthur Andersen v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 707-08, 125 S.Ct. 2129, 161 L.Ed.2d 1008 (2005), which involved document shredding, the Court admonished that it is one thing to say that a proceeding `need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense,' and quite another to say a proceeding need not even be foreseen. Lamb argues that her conviction cannot stand because there was insufficient evidence to prove that she believed her actions would affect a foreseeable official proceeding. And failing that, she argues that her conviction should be vacated (presumably for a new trial) because the jury was not adequately instructed that Lamb had to have foreseen an official proceeding to act corruptly under the statute. We consider first the question of the jury instructions. Because Lamb did not object to the jury instructions or request the specific Forseeability instruction she now urges, we review the instructions only for plain error. United States v. Ye, 588 F.3d 411, 414 (7th Cir.2009). Lamb argues that she was entitled to an explicit Forseeability instruction. She apparently leaves it to us to fashion the appropriate instruction, as she did not request such an instruction below and does not propose any specific language now. The district court in this case gave a Forseeability instruction. Specifically, it instructed the jury that to convict on the obstruction of justice charge, it must find that Lamb attempted to destroy or conceal an object and acted with the intent to impair the object's availability for use in an official proceeding.  It also specified that this official proceeding was the federal grand jury or a proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, but need[ed] not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense. We approved virtually identical jury instructions in Matthews, 505 F.3d at 704-05. Here, just as in Matthews, the instructions clearly informed the jury that it could only convict Lamb if it found that she attempted to destroy or conceal the crack cocaine with the intent to prevent its use in a federal grand jury or criminal proceeding in the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. See id. at 708. Thus, the jury could not have convicted Lamb unless it found that she foresaw such a proceeding. The instructions adequately conveyed § 1512(c)(1)'s nexus requirement; there was no error. Next, we turn to the sufficiency of the evidence. We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and will reverse only if no rational trier or fact could have found [the defendant] guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Williams, 553 F.3d 1073, 1080 (7th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. DeSilva, 505 F.3d 711, 715 (7th Cir. 2007)). Lamb argues that if we sustain her conviction, we endorse the idea that mere knowledge of a criminal investigation is enough to trigger § 1512(c)(1) and she insists that this cannot be what Congress intended because it has enacted separate statutes that more precisely address the conduct at issue here. Section 1519, for example, criminalizes the obstruction of a federal investigation, and § 2232 criminalizes the destruction or removal of property to prevent its lawful seizure. She asserts that such an extension of § 1512(c)(1) would drag in all sorts of run-of-the-mill obstructive conduct  from tossing drugs or money out of a car window during pursuit by the police to flushing evidence down the toilet at the first sign of a police investigation. Lamb's argument appears to invoke the rule of lenity, where criminal statutes must be construed narrowly. But we cannot accept this argument. Lamb would have us read the statute more narrowly than its plain terms suggest and the rule of lenity does not require this. See United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613, 618 (7th Cir.2010) (declining to apply rule of lenity where statute was unambiguous). Further, there is no suggestion that Congress could not include even the most mundane destruction of evidence. Clearly, such obstructive conduct is illegal under other statutes. Nor is there any rule that two statutes cannot overlap, even significantly. The fact that Lamb's conduct would also violate statutes more tailored to her specific actions does not mean that it does not also violate the more general provisions of § 1512(c)(1). Moreover, it cannot be that the government needed to prove that Lamb knew that her conduct would affect a particular official proceeding: § 1512(f)(1) instructs us that [f]or purposes of this section an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense. It simply needed to provide enough evidence that Lamb foresaw that the contraband might be used in an official proceeding and destroyed it with the intent of preventing that use. But why else would Lamb aggressively destroy contraband while authorities were attempting to exercise a search warrant, other than to prevent the discovery of that evidence? And why would she want to prevent that discovery, if not to minimize or eliminate the evidence that could be used against her in a criminal prosecution? There was evidence that Lamb was aware of, and perhaps deeply involved with, Johnson's cocaine dealing. Given her level of involvement, it was not unreasonable for a jury to assume that Lamb was aware of how much difference the type and quantity of the drugs discovered could make, and that she destroyed the cocaine base with the intent to minimize the evidence against her and Johnson at their eventual criminal prosecution. And this is not a case of a suspect panicking and tossing contraband out the window of a fleeing vehicle. Rather, when threatened with a search warrant, Lamb slammed closed the metal door, then while the police were attempting to force their way into the house, she spent over 20 minutes deliberately eradicating evidence of her and Johnson's criminal activity. Possibly at first Lamb did not believe that the people at the door were really police. But the ensuing activity of federal agents as well as local police and firefighters should have convinced her otherwise. This was enough evidence for the jury to conclude that Lamb foresaw criminal prosecution and used the last few minutes before they gained entry to minimize the evidence against her and Johnson. The evidence may not have been overwhelming. But that is often the case when attempting to prove what was in a defendant's mind. The jury could have believed, as Lamb urged, that she acted out of panic or because she believed the cops were crooked and out to steal the drugs. The jury was not required, however, to accept Lamb's version of events. Given Lamb's knowledge of Johnson's cocaine dealing and the quantities involved, the jury could reasonably believe that Lamb foresaw that any contraband discovered in the search would be used against her and Johnson in official proceedings. Therefore, the jury could reasonably conclude that she foresaw proceedings in the federal grand jury or the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and destroyed cocaine base to prevent that use. [5]