Court Opinion

ID: 9485951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:34:24.654203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:27.486453
License: Public Domain

TACHA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In this appeal, we address Paul Wood’s challenge to the sufficiency of his indictment. A criminal indictment must safeguard two constitutional guarantees: “the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation in order to prepare a defense; and the Fifth Amendment protection against twice being placed in jeopardy for the identical offense.” United States v. Russo, 527 F.2d 1051, 1058 (10th Cir.1975) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 906, 96 S.Ct. 2226, 48 L.Ed.2d 831 (1976). An indictment conforms to these minimal constitutional standards when it (1) contains the essential elements of the offense intended to be charged, (2) sufficiently apprises the accused of what she must be prepared to defend against, and (3) enables the accused to plead an acquittal or conviction under the indictment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1047, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); United States v. Walker, 947 F.2d 1439, 1441 (10th Cir.1991).
After applying this test to the indictment before us, the majority affirms the district court’s conclusion that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed because they fail to state the essential elements of the offenses intended to be charged. Because I cannot agree with the majority’s standard of review, its method of reading the indictment, or its construction of the relevant criminal statutes, I respectfully dissent.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the dismissal of an indictment for failure to state a punishable offense de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Levine, 970 F.2d 681, 685 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 289, 121 L.Ed.2d 214 (1992); United States v. Wood, 958 F.2d 963, 974 (10th Cir.1992). This standard means that we are not bound by the district court’s interpretation of the charging statute. Walker, 947 F.2d at 1441. Moreover, we must accept the allegations in the indictment as true, showing no deference to the district court’s construction of those allegations. United States v. Barker Steel Co., 985 F.2d 1123, 1125 & n. 2 (1st Cir.1993). Although we read the indictment as a whole, see Russo, 527 F.2d at 1058, because each count of an indictment is regarded as a separate indictment, the sufficiency of a particular count depends solely on the allegations contained in that count, absent express language of incorporation, United States v. Hernandez, 980 F.2d 868, 871 (2d Cir.1992); see also Gainey v. United States, 318 F.2d 795, 797 (10th Cir.1963).
In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the indictments, the majority relies on the district court’s finding that the FBI agents were working on behalf of the grand jury in a matter outside the FBI’s jurisdiction. Relying on this finding is improper, however, because we must accept as true all of the factual allegations found in the indictment. In a criminal jury trial the district court has no fact finding role with regard to the general issue of guilt or innocence. Rather, the jury has the responsibility to determine whether the “matter” at issue was, in fact, “within the jurisdiction” of the FBI. See United States v. Knox, 396 U.S. 77, 83-84 & n. 7, 90 S.Ct. 363, 367 & n. 7, 24 L.Ed.2d 275 (1969) (question whether false statement was made willfully, as is required by § 1001, was part of the “general issue” to be resolved at trial and not on pretrial Rule 12(b) motion); United States v. King, 581 F.2d 800, 802 (10th Cir.1978) (“The matter raised by appellees’ motion was not ‘capable of determination without the trial of the general issue.’ It was the general issue. Until the matter is put to trial before the trier of fact, the dis*698trict court has no jurisdiction to decide a defendant’s innocence or guilt.”) (emphasis added). Thus, because the district court had no fact finding role, the majority improperly relies on the district court’s finding that the FBI agents were acting on behalf of the grand jury.
The majority compounds its error by relying on extrinsic evidence that the FBI agents served a subpoena duces tecum on Wood at the conclusion of the interview. It is well established that the sufficiency of an indictment rests solely on the allegations made on its face. See, e.g., United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 78-79, 83 S.Ct. 173, 175, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956); King, 581 F.2d at 802 (holding that evidence outside the indictment “is irrelevant to a determination of whether the indictment itself is legally sufficient”) (internal quotations omitted); United States v. Gallagher, 602 F.2d 1139, 1142 (3d Cir.1979) (holding that, on remand, a trial court may not consider testimony presented at the first trial in testing the sufficiency of the indictment), cert. dismissed, 444 U.S. 1040, 100 S.Ct. 713, 62 L.Ed.2d 675, and cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1043, 100 S.Ct. 729, 62 L.Ed.2d 728 (1980). Thus, at this stage of the proceedings, our role is to determine whether the factual allegations of the indictment, taken as true, are sufficient by themselves to state a punishable offense. Wo'od can only challenge the sufficiency of the government’s case with extrinsic evidence after the government has presented its case at his second trial, at which time Wood may move for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. At that time, the trial court may decide whether, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by the government is sufficient to establish the essential factual elements of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
II. FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1001
The false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, punishes “[wjhoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully ... makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Relying on the judicial function exception recognized by this court in United States v. Deffenbaugh Indus., Inc., 957 F.2d 749, 752-53 (10th Cir.1992), the district court concluded that the FBI agents did not exercise their independent investigative authority when they interviewed Wood, but instead exercised the authority of the grand jury, which is not a “department or agency of the United States.” Applying the proper standard of review as outlined above, I conclude that the district court erred.
As a matter of law, Count I of the indictment sufficiently alleges that the interview during which Wood lied to the FBI agents was within the jurisdiction of an agency or department of the United States. Count I provides:
On or about May 22, 1989, within the State and District of New Mexico, defendant PAUL D. WOOD, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations as to material facts to Special Agents Michael Pullano, Linda Bateman and George Black of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Justice, an agency and department of the United States....
(emphasis added).1 Although the allegation of agency jurisdiction tracks the statutory language, “[i]t is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished.” Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) (internal quotations omitted); see also Wood, 958 F.2d at 974. I conclude that the statutory language regarding agency jurisdiction sufficiently safeguards Wood’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
*699Indeed, the majority does not conclude that Count I, on its face, fails to state the essential element of agency jurisdiction. Instead, it reasons that the allegation that the FBI was acting “in furtherance of an investigation” by a grand jury, which appears only in Count II of the indictment, somehow renders Count I’s allegation of agency jurisdiction insufficient. The majority errs, however, because the sufficiency of Count I, which does not expressly incorporate the allegations of Count II, depends solely on the allegations contained in that count.
Even if it were proper to tax the “grand jury” allegation in Count II against the “agency jurisdiction” allegation in Count I, these two allegations are not inconsistent. The FBI, like any police agency, has at least two goals when it investigates a crime: first, it seeks to apprehend the offenders, and second, it seeks to gather enough evidence for the prosecution to sustain a conviction in any future trial. Because, absent waiver, a citizen cannot be prosecuted in federal court unless a grand jury indicts him, the FBI also necessarily seeks to obtain on the government’s behalf sufficient evidence to sustain a grand jury finding of probable cause to indict. In my judgment, these related activities of the FBI all fall within the statutory authority of the FBI to “detect and prosecute crimes,” and thus are matters within the jurisdiction of the FBI. See United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475, 481, 104 S.Ct. 1942, 1947, 80 L.Ed.2d 492 (1984) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 533(1)). Construing the phrase “in furtherance of [a grand jury] investigation” in the light most favorable to the government, I conclude that the phrase states only that the FBI would present any evidence it obtained to the grand jury, not that it was actually exercising the grand jury’s authority.
The majority’s contrary conclusion departs from the rationale of our decision in Deffen-baugh. In that case, we held that the Department of Justice had no statutory authority to require the defendant to submit an affidavit of compliance when he presented his response to a federal grand jury subpoena duces tecum to the Antitrust Division rather than directly to the grand jury. Deffenbaugh, 957 F.2d at 753. Because the power to issue subpoenas rests exclusively with the grand jury, we reasoned that, to the extent that the Department of Justice officials were exercising any authority, that authority flowed from the grand jury. Id. Since the grand jury is part of the judicial process, we concluded, the Department of Justice officials were not acting on a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency. See id. at 752-53.
In this ease, however, nothing in the indictment suggests that the FBI agents were exercising the grand jury’s unique subpoena power when they interviewed Wood. By holding otherwise, the majority makes it impossible for the government to obtain sufficient indictments or sustain convictions against defendants who make false statements to FBI agents during the pendency of grand jury investigations, since any FBI investigation is at that point at least partly in furtherance of the grand jury investigation. I cannot believe that Congress intended this result when it passed § 1001. Thus, although I agree that it is too late in the day to hold that no judicial function exception exists, in my judgment, the majority stretches the exception beyond its proper boundaries.2
III. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1503
Count II of the indictment charges Wood with a violation of the “omnibus clause” of the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503. As we held in the last appeal, that clause contains four essential elements: (1) a pending judicial proceeding, (2) defendant’s knowledge of the proceeding, (3) defendant’s specific intent to impede the proceeding, and (4) conduct which impedes or constitutes an *700endeavor to impede the proceeding. See Wood, 958 F.2d at 975. Today, for the first time, the majority adds a fifth element — the conduct must be such “that its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due administration of justice” — and then holds that Count II of the indictment should be dismissed because it fails to allege this new essential element. Although it is a close question, I also disagree with this conclusion.
In deciding to add this new fifth element, the majority follows the lead of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647 (11th Cir.1990). Although I agree that some version of this limiting element is necessary because in some instances the nexus between particular acts and “the progress of a judicial proceeding is too attenuated and the statutory construction therefore too strained,” see United States v. Walasek, 527 F.2d 676, 679 (3d Cir.1975), I believe that the Thomas court and the majority overstate the required nexus. Many of the earlier cases from other circuits defining “endeavor to impede justice” state the required nexus in terms of possibility rather than probability. For example, in United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460 (11th Cir.1985), the court stated that § 1503 proscribes conduct “which produces or which is capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered.” Id. at 1465; see also Cole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied 377 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 1630, 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964). Although we must read § 1503 strictly in favor of the accused, we cannot define the required nexus too narrowly without running afoul of the Supreme Court’s definition of “endeavor” under an earlier codification of the obstruction statute as “any effort or essay to do or accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent.” United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138, 143, 41 S.Ct. 260, 261, 65 L.Ed. 553 (1921). I would therefore define “endeavor to impede justice” as any conduct which is capable of impeding the due administration of justice.3 Moreover, like the Thomas court, but unlike the majority, I would treat this definition of the proper nexus not as a separate essential element of the offense, but as an explanation of the element of an “endeavor to impede justice.” See Thomas, 916 F.2d at 651. With this definition in mind, I conclude that Count II of the indictment sufficiently alleges an endeavor to impede justice. The count alleges that Wood “did endeavor to ... impede the due administration of justice” by lying to the FBI agents “in order to prevent [the grand jury] from learning the true facts and purpose concerning PAUL D. WOOD’S conveyance of a 1988 red Nissan Pulsar automobile to Peter MacDonald in August, 1988.” This language adequately apprises Wood of the charge against him for purposes of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. Notwithstanding the fact that the majority finds it “difficult to believe that the FBI agents would terminate their investigation based on the self-serving exculpatory explanation offered by defendant,” the indictment alleges conduct by Wood which a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt was capable of diverting the grand jury from its investigation. The fact that the government eventually learned the true facts does not preclude the reasonable implication that its discovery could have been delayed by Wood’s tactics. See United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir.) (stating that a perjurious grand jury witness can impede justice by “delaying the punishment of the guilty.”), cert. denied 444 U.S. 825, 100 S.Ct. 48, 62 L.Ed.2d 32 (1979). Thus, I conclude that Count II of the indictment sufficiently states an offense under § 1503.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. The remainder of Count I alleges with particularity the false statements Wood made to the FBI agents, and the true facts as known to Wood at the time.

. Although the majority also warns that § 1001, read literally, "would swallow up the perjury statutes,” there is no danger of that happening in this case because Wood's statements were unsworn. Cf. Deffenbaugh, 957 F.2d at 752 (noting that defendant's false statements were contained in a signed affidavit of compliance). Moreover, the majority's reasoning in footnote 2 that Congress could not have intended harsher punishment for trivial misrepresentations than for per-jurious statements has been expressly rejected by the .Supreme Court. See Rodgers, 466 U.S. at 482-83, 104 S.Ct. at 1948.

. That a particular act had the "natural and probable effect” of impeding justice would remain relevant to the question whether the defendant had the requisite specific intent to impede justice. See United States v. White, 557 F.2d 233, 236 (10th Cir.1977).