Document: 515 U.S. 593115 S.Ct. 2357132 L.Ed.2d 520 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Robert P. AGUILAR. No. 94-270. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 20, 1995. Decided June 21, Syllabus * Respondent Aguilar, a District Judge, was convicted illegally disclosing wiretap in violation 18 U.S.C. § 2232(c), even though authorization for particular had expired before disclosure made. Because he lied to Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) agents during grand jury investigation, also endeavoring obstruct due administration justice under 1503. The Appeals reversed both convictions, reasoning that Aguilar's conduct each instance not covered by statutory language. Held: 1. Uttering false statements an investigating agent who might or testify is sufficient make out 1503's prohibition "endeavor[ing] influence, obstruct, impede . justice." "nexus" requirement developed recent court appeals decisions—whereby accused's act must have relationship time, causation, logic with judicial proceedings—is correct construction very broad Under approach, accused take action intent influence such proceedings; it enough there be some ancillary proceeding, as investigation independent court's jury's authority. Moreover, endeavor "natural and probable effect" interfering justice, see, e.g., v. Wood, 6 F.3d 692, 695, person lacking knowledge his actions are likely affect pending proceeding necessarily lacks requisite Pettibone States, 148 197, 206-207, 13 542, 546-547, 37 L.Ed. 419. Government did show here FBI acted arm jury, subpoenaed their testimony otherwise directed them appear, respondent knew would provided jury. Indeed, evidence goes no further than showing testified falsely agent. What use will made so speculative cannot said obstructing justice. Pp. ____. 2. Disclosure after its expires violates which provides criminal penalties anyone who, "[1] having officer has been authorized applied intercept wire communication, [2] order impede, prevent interception, [3] gives notice attempts give possible interception any person." Contrary Appeals' holding, language does require application esse at time disclosure. Such narrow purpose evidenced term "such interception" statute's second clause, merely establishes defendant intend pursuant required first clause. Similarly, phrase "possible third clause designed limit punishable offense cases where factually "possible," but intended recognize fact prohibited given could known whether interception. without word statute only prohibit giving "the interception": It reach yet resulted Finally, need read exclude disclosures wiretaps because concern broader run counter First Amendment. Government's interest nondisclosure officials sensitive confidential positions quite justify written, artificial narrowing Amendment concerns. 21 1475 (CA9 1994), affirmed part, remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined, Part I STEVENS, J., all last paragraph II SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, joined. filed concurring part dissenting part. KENNEDY James Feldman, petitioner. Robert D. Luskin, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 A Judge Aguilar one count panel Ninth Circuit conviction 2232(c) After rehearing en banc, convictions. We granted certiorari resolve conflict among federal circuits over 1503 punishes potential witnesses, answer important question 2232(c). 513 ----, 115 571, 130 488 (1994). 2 Many facts remain disputed parties. Both parties appear agree, however, motion post-conviction relief Michael Rudy Tham represents starting point from events bearing on this case unfolded. International Brotherhood Teamsters, embezzling funds local affiliate organization. In July 1987, 28 2255 set aside. assigned Stanley Weigel. Tham, seeking enhance odds petition granted, asked Edward Solomon Abraham Chalupowitz, a.k.a. Abe Chapman, assist him capitalizing respective acquaintances another judge Northern California, Aguilar. Chapman distant relation marriage law school. met discuss Tham's case, result spoke Weigel about matter. 3 Independent embezzlement conviction, identified suspect labor racketeering. On April install business phones. appeared interceptee. Peckham wiretap. 30 day May 2518(5), maintained secrecy 2518(8)(d) good cause. During course racketeering learned meetings between informed Peckham, concerned appearances impropriety, advised August 1987 connected elements Chapman's name authorization. 4 Five months named authorization, noticed man observing home visit Chapman. He alerted nephew conveyed message (with relay information Chapman) phone being wiretapped. apparently believed, error, phones were tapped connection initial still effect. effective October through period disclosure, suggestion record latter specific reauthorization. 5 At point, respondent's involvement two separate matters converged. Two nephew, began investigate alleged conspiracy outcome habeas case. questioned interview, participation returned indictment; wiretap, conviction. convictions reason concluded requires thwart interference " 'possible interception' knowledge. Id., 1480. Finding impossible once expired, held plain statute. found interfered noted investigation. then uttering 'corruptly influence' within meaning 1485-1486. drew conclusion, 1988 amendments 1512, added corrupt persuasion witnesses. 1512 active attempt persuade witness tell story, used guide interpret omnibus narrowly. 7 Section provides: 8 "Whoever corruptly, threats force, threatening letter endeavors intimidate, petit juror, may serving examination other commissioner committing magistrate, discharge duty, injures juror property account verdict indictment assented him, officer, commissioner, magistrate performance official duties, corruptly influences, obstructs, impedes, shall fined more $5,000 imprisoned five years, both." (emphasis added). 9 structured follows: proscribes persons jurors officers duties; prohibits injuring rendered them; injury similar finally, "Omnibus Clause" serves catchall, prohibiting can seen, far general scope earlier clauses charged Omnibus Clause, wit: "corruptly endeavor[ing] investigation." App. 106. 10 construing predecessor 419 (1893). There we "a sufficiently impeding unless appears administered court." 206, S.Ct., 546. reasoned lacked evil obstruct. 207, 546-547. Recent decisions courts likewise tended place metes bounds catchall provision. taken Court's Brown, 688 F.2d 596, 598 1982) (citing cases). Some phrased requirement—that causation proceedings. 696 (CA10 1993); Walasek, 527 676, 679, n. 12 (CA3 1975). words, 'natural effect' supra, 695; Thomas, 916 647, 651 (CA11 1990); 679. This say defendant's successful; "endeavor" suffices. Russell, 255 138, 143, 41 260, 261, 65 553 (1921). But Pettibone, if 11 Although urges various grounds affirmance,1 find unnecessary address think traditionally exercised restraint assessing statute, deference prerogatives Congress, Dowling 473 105 3127, 87 152 (1985), fair warning should world common understand, what intends do certain line passed," McBoyle 283 25, 27, 51 340, 341, 75 816 (1931). believe agent—and seems proven here—who provision indeed summoned these agents. argues "understood jury" just Brief 18. supports argument citation transcript recorded conversation asks target responded stating: "[T]here Grand Jury meeting. Convening guess that's word. Um heard I'm sure issue." 86. 14 therefore contends analogous those directly itself, form documents.2 15 relied upon enable rational trier conclude statement conduct, believe, falls side delivers documents itself. Conduct sort assures consider material deliberations. speculative. 16 SCALIA's dissent criticizes our treatment reading it, inasmuch excludes defendants means "only unnaturally improbably successful." Post, criticism unwarranted. Our useful function fulfill: makes acts manner foiled way. Were lie ultimately called testify, testifies transmit version endeavored to, actually, obstructed guilty. 17 believes act, done "obstruct justice," impose liability. dissent's theory, guilty wife whereabouts crime, thinking decide interview her she turn influenced husband's whereabouts. present, man's culpability deal less clear usually sought authorized. reads: 19 "Whoever, investigative enforcement chapter 119 wire, oral, electronic title 20 section much precisely targeted discussed above. defines element criminal: communication. done: "in interception." act: "gives persuaded hold accepted Appeals. "[T]he interception.' F.3d, Once denied, reasoned, disclose disclose. Ibid. requirement, limits undertaken interfere 'such "has knowledge." circumstances, fails violate terms implicate protected 38. 22 argument, think, face clause; describes offends intending existence ordinarily way knowing doubtless why uses "possible" based possible, 23 thought justified view aim interceptions, longer threatened. aimed something interceptions; orders applications lead interceptions. complete given, when often place. 24 STEVENS criminalizes rely "possible." That so. reference occurs specifying element. actus reus independently satisfied. Without Congress accomplished same phrasing differently—for instance, repeating post, ____ undercut necessary written criminalize behavior.3 25 Acceptance position open door additional claims "impossibility" mechanical failure, departure whose intercepted reception authorized, come mind. Osborn 385 323, 333, 429, 435, 394 (1966), expressed reservations "continuing validity [of] doctrine 'impossibility,' subtleties," attempt, us engraft onto 26 see necessity restrictive true government generally restrict individuals lawfully comes into hands absence "state highest order," Smith Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 97, 103, 99 2667, 2671, 61 399 (1979). restriction generally, instruct, prevent" Nor simply member public happened acquire possession wiretap; district wished preserve integrity court. special duties nondisclosure. See Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(e) (prohibiting information). Likewise, protective imposed acquired civil discovery violating Seattle Times Co. Rhinehart, 467 31, 104 2199, 2206, 81 (1984). As voluntarily assumed duty confidentiality, governmental restrictions subject stringent standards apply efforts unwilling members public. Snepp 444 507, 100 763, 62 704 (1980) (per curiam ). postponed notification maintain 2518(1)(d). 27 raised below challenge instructions, decide. affirm decision respect reverse remand proceedings consistent decision. So ordered. 29 agree disposition issue, rejection correctly construed invalidate 31 When 30-day impossible: nonexistent Traditionally, proscribe accompanied dangerous probability [the unlawful result] happen." Swift & 196 375, 396, 276, 279, 49 518 (1905) (Holmes, J.). Whether exists, course, depends declared unlawful. W. LaFave A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 6.3, pp. 44-45 (1986). actually reveal none existed reveal. abjure leads criminalizing nothing harmless particularly when, here, clearly extend liability far. Cf. Simpson 435 6, 14-15, 98 909, 914, 55 70 (1978). 32 text favors requires, essential offense, possibility support straightforward interpretation. refers knows authorization" make. expires, occur. infer includes subsequent reauthorization severely undermines making actual initial, limited linchpin later, entirely conjectural authorizations. inference contradicts usual practice strict effect scienter provisions. See, X-Citement Video, Inc., ---- - 464, 467-470, 372 33 definite article "authorized" (or authorization) per thereby imposing satisfy next word, interceptions prevented failures ante, ____, long however unlikely, legally "authorized." wholly theoretical attempting nor it; therefore, 34 explain assurance cover application, unpersuasive. plainly applications, work assigns it. interception," already well. temporal limitation reasoning, disclosed 10-year-old properly understood, absurd limiting present 35 notes response dissent, define replacing "notice unambiguous application." language, achieve words acknowledge limitation. 3. Rather recognizing contains, hints future invent one. Limiting authorizing announces well "plausible," ibid., plausible basis exists finding wiser legislation, submit, adopt literal, reasonable drafted. 36 entirety. whom THOMAS join, 38 join opinion. Appeals, uphold charging 39 "omnibus clause" 1503, charged, 40 (1988 Ed.). success influencing proscription, specifically violating, 106-107, generous reading: "The 'endeavor,' using got rid technicalities urged besetting 'attempt,' effort essay accomplish enacted prevent." (1921) added) (interpreting substantially identical statute). immaterial accomplishment. dismissed hand defense convey bribe prospective intermediary secretly working government. "Whatever continuing validity," said, 'impossibility' continue body inapplicable here." (footnote omitted).1 42 Even broadest, "endeavors" limits. To strive end. Webster's New Dictionary 844 (2d ed. 1950); Shorter Oxford English (1993). Thus, reaches purposeful i.e., performed object Mullins, 1365, 1370 (CA6 1994); Ryan, 455 728, 734 1972). forth (1893), insufficient failed allege rejected contention commit doing obstructed"; exist." 547. acknowledge, distorted produce today's intentionally committed wrongful obstruction consequence." 43 Today's sounds like this, reality different. Instead reaffirming consequence" establishing intent, substitutes ' requiring factor clear. quoting 695 1993), quotes 1990).2 while proper derive "endeavor," consequence requirement. One "endeavoring" successful. "any essay" constitutes forbidden endeavor, U.S., even, Osborn, incapable effect, 435. 44 indicate Instead, justifies holding assertion "[w]e passed." Ante, (citation internal quotation marks omitted). "exercising statute" (which rule lenity Bass, 404 336, 347-348, 92 515, 522, (1971)) different importing extratextual requirements here. By effectively reads Russell embraced leaving competent attempts. 45 adds know natural ("[I]f obstruct"). Separate proof not, orthodox Pettibone: Where commits unintended wrong character intended." Or, put modern times, entitled presume consequences acts. 46 While inquiry state superfluous (since anyway), my matters; fairly known. critical view, "respondent jury," (a heightened burden knowledge-of-natural-and-probable-effect requirement), rather knew—or indeed, erroneously believed —that needed conclusion mislead jury). Applying familiar standard Jackson Virginia, 307, 2781, 560 (1979), question, readily beyond doubt misdeeds. 47 Recorded conversations established convened, 47; told id., 68; feared unable 51. himself that, least "impression" reported Tr. 1360 (Aug. 14, 1990). minimized investigating. 73, 76, 81, 83-84, Viewing light most favorable Government, am jury—which suffices constitute fact, hard otherwise. III 48 Since against count, several offered affirming setting aside First, invoking interpretive canon ejusdem generis, since rest officers,3 "limits follow ones specified," Gooch 297 124, 128, 56 395, 397, 80 522 (1936); accord Harrison PPG Industries, 446 578, 588, 1889, 1895, 64 525 (1980), catch-all, collective following list items command applicable (e.g., "fishing rods, nets, hooks, bobbers, sinkers, equipment"). Rather, distinct prohibitions contained share "Whoever," begins penalty ends render superfluous. Howard, 569 1331, 1333 (CA5 1978). 1982 dealing tampering, simultaneously removed provisions previously addressing injure Victim Witness Protection Act 1982, Pub.L. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1249-1250, 1253, witness-related amendment, alter encompasses "endeavors now overlap intolerable hardly was, extent overlap, silently repealed. unusual Gavieres 220 338, 342, 421, 422, 489 (1911), situations proceed applies, Batchelder, 442 114, 123-124, 2198, 2204, 60 755 (1979); Beacon Brass 344 43, 45-46, 73 77, 78-79, 97 (1952). is, moreover, cardinal principle repeals implication favored." Continental Tuna Corp., 425 164, 168, 1319, 1323, 653 (1976); Posadas National City Bank, 296 497, 503, 349, 352, 351 (1936). 50 posits impede' "may unconstitutionally vague," provide lying witnesses proscribed. 22, 13. Statutory colloquial, "corruptly" laws long-standing well-accepted meaning. denotes "[a]n advantage inconsistent rights others. bribery comprehensive; derived another." Ogle, 613 233, 238 (CA10) (internal omitted), cert. 449 825, 101 87, 66 (1980). Ballentine's 276 (3d 1969); Black's 345 (6th instructed jury: "An it's bring either lawful method, hope expectation financial gain benefit oneself 117. 52 context proceedings, claim ignorance wrongdoing incredible. Acts "influence, justice" obviously wrongful, they "corrupt." 239; North, 910 843, 941 (Silberman, part), modified, 920 940 (CADC Reeves, 752 995, 999 (CA5), 474 834, 106 107, 88 (1985). 53 54 today engrafts enacted. judgment syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. vague overbroad type issue narrowed expressly punished 1512. 1367-1368 1994) (altered records co-worker subpoena duces tecum ); Williams, 874 968, 976-982 1989) (uttered jury); McComb, 744 555, 559 (CA7 1984) (created meeting minutes Faudman, 640 1981) (falsified records, 679-680 1975) requested "absurd" prosecution discloser years expired. reserve presents note wiretapping scheme whole suggests notifies interceptee related 2518(8)(d). occur "within time" denial termination "good cause." brief notified May, 1989. issued year disavowal impossibility excessive. (1893) acknowledged, exist "[O]bstruction arise administered." 977 ("There three core establish .: (1) proceeding"). origin doctrine, mistake does. cited misapplied standing principle—flowing Pettibone—that prove "all reasonably foreseen [obstruct justice]." Silverman, 745 1386, 1393 1984). Fields, 838 1571, 1573 1988). consequence," approves "intent." Neiswender, 590 1269, 1273 (CA4), 441 963, 2410, 1068 Those provide: ed.).

Category: 0