Opinion ID: 604939
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count Ten--Obstruction of Justice

Text: 27 Hall and Johnson were convicted under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (1984) for endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by questioning a grand juror about an investigation. Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2), which imposes a general rule of secrecy, states that a grand juror .. shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury. In order to convict an individual under § 1503, the government must prove that the defendants knowingly and intentionally undertook an action from which an obstruction of justice was a reasonably foreseeable result. United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir.1990). The government is not required to prove that a defendant had the specific purpose of obstructing justice, but it must establish that the conduct was motivated, at least in part, by a corrupt motive. Id. Any person who knowingly violates Rule 6(e)(2) [Fed.R.Crim.P.] or induces or attempts to induce another person to violate the Rule may be [convicted] for obstruction of justice under § 1503. Blalock v. United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1561 n. 22 (11th Cir.1988) (JJ. Tjoflat and Roetger, concurring specially). Johnson claims that the grand juror, without any influence from Johnson, sought out himself and Hall and volunteered the information. Although the grand juror apparently made the initial contact with Johnson on his own initiative, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that both Hall and Johnson questioned the juror about who was being investigated, that they both met with him thereafter to discuss the grand jury's investigation, and that both asked the grand juror to keep them informed of further developments. The disclosure of secret information by a grand juror, which otherwise would not have been revealed, was a reasonably foreseeable result of meeting with the grand juror, questioning him about the grand jury investigation, and asking him to keep them informed of developments. Hall and Johnson were more that just passive recipients of secret information, they actively solicited information relating to the grand jury proceedings and the evidence supported the jury's verdict.