Opinion ID: 4162094
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Blockburger Test

Text: On appeal, Davis argues that the obstruction of justice and witness tampering charges were multiplicitous because they “have essentially identical elements.” Appellant Br. 54. The government responds that 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) protect different interests and therefore focus on different elements. The government’s argument is well-taken. To convict a defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 1503’s omnibus clause, the government must show that he “(1) corruptly or by threats, (2) endeavored, (3) to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.” United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1392 (11th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted); United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460, 1465 (11th Cir. 1985) (same). To convict a defendant of witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), the government must prove that: (1) the defendant knowingly used intimidation, physical force, or threats against another person; and (2) this conduct was intended to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1); United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 200 (1st Cir. 1999). Although we have not addressed the precise question of whether prosecuting a defendant for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and for witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) is multiplicitous, our sister circuits have concluded that they are not because they require proof of different elements. See 21 Case: 15-13241 Date Filed: 04/20/2017 Page: 22 of 40 Risken, 788 F.2d at 1369 (“We also hold that appellant’s conviction under both § 1512 and § 1503 is not multiplicious in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment.”); United States v. LeMoure, 474 F.3d 37, 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (rejecting a multiplicity challenge on grounds that § 1503 and § 1512(b)(1) are different offenses under Blockburger); United States v. Wesley, 748 F.2d 962, 96365 (5th Cir. 1984) (rejecting a multiplicity challenge as contrary to the “plain words of the statute” and as a “misinterpret[ation of] the legislative history behind § 1512”). We agree. We have explained that § 1503 “forbids interferences with the due administration of justice, i.e., judicial procedure.” United States v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Silverman, 745 F.2d at 1393). Consistent with this approach, other circuits have found that “[p]roof of a violation of § 1503 requires proof of the defendant’s knowledge of a pending judicial proceeding, which is expressly not an element of a violation of § 1512.” Risken, 788 F.2d at 1369; LeMoure, 474 F.3d at 43 (“[S]ection 1503 as read by the Supreme Court requires an attempt to obstruct a pending judicial proceeding, . . . no such requirement of a pending proceeding exists in section 1512.”); United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698, 708 n.3 (7th Cir. 2007) (same). Indeed, § 1512(f) provides that, for purposes of this section, “an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. 22 Case: 15-13241 Date Filed: 04/20/2017 Page: 23 of 40 § 1512(f)(1). Other circuits have also found that, although § 1512(b)(1) “requires proof that one intend to ‘influence, delay, or prevent . . . testimony of any person,’” § 1503 does not. LeMoure, 474 F.3d at 43 (quoting § 1512(b)(1)). The elements of the two charges are, thus, not the same. Davis argues that this analysis is “not sound” and that the charges are the same because § 1512 “implicitly requires proof of knowledge of a pending judicial proceeding.” Appellant Br. 54-55. Davis cites no authority for this proposition, and his “implicit requirement” approach is inconsistent with Blockburger. As we have explained, the Blockburger test requires that we “examine only the elements themselves; if an offense requires proof of an element that the other offense does not, we need look no further in determining that the prosecution of both offenses does not offend the Fifth Amendment.” Hassoun, 476 F.3d at 1186. Applying this framework, we conclude that the witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges in the superseding indictment were not multiplicitous. “Each charge is proscribed by a separate statutory provision and the facts necessary to one are not necessary to the other.” United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 599 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Davis’s prosecution and subsequent conviction on both counts was not multiplicitous and did not constitute double jeopardy. 23 Case: 15-13241 Date Filed: 04/20/2017 Page: 24 of 40