Court Opinion

ID: 9490672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:51:27.155987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:15.244082
License: Public Domain

CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As I believe that Farrell attempted “corruptly to persuade” his co-conspirator, Bachetti, to withhold incriminating information *492from law enforcement authorities, I would affirm his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) for witness-tampering. Both the legislative history of § 1512 and the relevant case law support the government’s position that § 1512’s “corruptly persuade” language means the same as the similar “corruptly” language in § 1503, a related statute, namely, persuasion that is motivated by an improper purpose. I do not agree with the majority that applying the “improper purpose” test to § 1512 leads to statutory redundancy. Nor do I agree that simply because Bachetti would have had a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, Farrell’s attempt to persuade him to remain silent, in order to shelter Farrell, was proper. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
1. History and Construction of Section 1512
Section 1512 was enacted in 1982 to replace and expand witness protection provisions that had earlier been incorporated in 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the obstruction of justice statute. While § 1512 took over the area of witness protection, § 1503 continued to protect jurors and court officers against intimidation and corrupt influence, as well as to punish other obstructions of justice. Thus § 1503 punished, and continues to punish, anyone who “corruptly ... endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any ... juror, or [federal court] officer” or otherwise “corruptly” to influence or obstruct the administration of justice.
Section 1512’s “corrupt persuasion” language, the language here in issue, was inserted by Congress in 1988. The amendment appeared in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADAA), Pub.L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181. Senator Biden, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee and the Senator who had taken the lead in drafting the criminal provisions of the ADAA, stated that the intention of the 1988 Amendments was “merely to include in section 1512 the same protection of witnesses from non-coercive influence that was (and is) found in section 1503.” 124 CONG. REC. S17300 (daily ed. Oct. 21, 1988) (statement of Senator Biden). At this time, Congress would have been aware of the judicial precedent that had developed around the “corruptly” language in § 1503. Senator Biden and his legislative colleagues would have known that courts, in construing § 1503, had defined “corruptly” as meaning “motivated by an improper purpose.” See e.g., United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 990-91 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939, 941 (2d Cir.1978); Martin v. United States, 166 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir.1948) (approving a jury instruction that defined “corruptly” as “with an improper motive”).
Given this background, it is logical to attribute to the “corruptly persuade” language in § 1512, as adopted by Congress in 1988, the same well-established meaning already attributed by the courts to the comparable language in § 1503, i.e. “motivated by an improper purpose.” This is what was concluded by the Second Circuit, the only court of appeals to have so far interpreted this aspect of § 1512. The Second Circuit translated the “improper purpose” standard from § 1503 to § 1512. United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442 (2d Cir.1996). The Second Circuit’s interpretation fits well within Senator Biden’s statement, since it includes within § 1512 protection from non-eoercive conduct analogous to that embraced within § 1503.
I cannot agree, therefore, with the majority’s assertion that the legislative history does not provide “much assistance” in construing the “corruptly persuade” language in issue. Senator Biden’s statement coupled with the fact that the witness-tampering provision of § 1512 evolved from § 1503, is strong evidence that Congress intended “corruptly persuade” in § 1512 to be construed in much the same manner as courts have construed similar phraseology in § 1503.
2. Adopting the “Improper Purpose” Test for Section 1512 does not Lead to Statutory Redundancy
The majority declines to follow the Second Circuit in Thompson because of its view that the disparate structures of the two statutes make such translation inappropriate. They state that the term “corruptly” provides the only intent element of § 1503, whereas § 1512 contains explicit general and specific *493intent elements in addition to the term “corruptly.” According to the majority, “construing ‘corruptly’ to mean merely ‘for an improper purpose’ (including those described in the statute) renders the term surplusage.” Majority Op., at p. 490, citing Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 141, 114 S.Ct. 655, 659, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994).
However, interpreting “corruptly” to mean “motivated by an improper purpose” does not create statutory redundancy. It is true that many courts have loosely declared that the term “corruptly” in § 1503 “does not superimpose a special and additional element on the offense,” United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 239 (10th Cir.1979), but rather includes any act “done with the purpose of obstructing justice,” United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 852 (9th Cir.1981). But such broad statements overlook that not all actions taken with the intent to hinder or obstruct justice necessarily violate § 1503 or § 1512. In such instances, the term “corruptly” can play an important role in limiting the reach of the statutes. For example, a mother urging her son, in his own interest, to elaim his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent would hardly be acting “corruptly,” that is, with an improper purpose. A newspaper attacking a particular prosecutor as going too far, or an altruistic citizen writing a letter to the prosecutor or the judge seeking clemency for the accused — would be other examples where the corruption requirement, i.e., improper purpose, would limit prosecutions under both statutes.
In United State v. Thompson, the court of appeals rejected the argument that by criminalizing corrupt persuasion, § 1512 violated Thompson’s free speech rights. The court held that “[a] prohibition against corrupt acts ‘is clearly limited 'to ... constitutionally unprotected and purportedly illicit activity.’” Thompson, 76 F.3d at 452 (quoting United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 679 (6th Cir.1985) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (1982))). See United States v. Fasolino, 449 F.Supp. 586 (W.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.1978) (non-corrupt endeavors to influence a jurist do not violate § 1503). Because § 1512 does not prevent innocent conduct nor “lawful or constitutionally protected speech,” id., even if such conduct or speech has the effect of hindering an investigation, the term “corruptly” adds an important dimension to § 1512.
I, therefore, disagree with the majority’s contention that to construe “corruptly” as meaning “with an improper purpose,” simply duplicates the intent element already present in § 1512. “Corruptly” indicates that persuasion of another which is intended to hinder, delay or prevent communications to a law enforcement officer or judge is criminal only if the dimension of improper purpose can also be found.1
3. Farrell’s Purpose when he Attempted to Prevent Bachetti from Communicating imth Investigators was Improper
The majority declares that Farrell lacked the degree of culpability necessary to violate § 1512. The majority believes that Farrell’s actions were not corrupt because Farrell was merely urging Bachetti to avail himself of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The majority apparently sees Farrell’s own interest in Bachetti’s constitutional privilege as outweighing the right of society to “the information of citizens regarding the commission of a crime.” Majority Op., at p. 489 n. 3.
Bachetti could, indeed, have invoked his Fifth Amendment right and refused to cooperate with the investigation in order to protect himself. But nothing in this principle implies that Farrell is constitutionally entitled to try to persuade Bachetti to take the Fifth Amendment in order to protect Farrell himself. To the contrary, courts that have *494faced this issue have decided the other way,finding that behavior similar to Farrell’s violates § 1503. For example, in United States v. Cioffi, 493 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir.1974), the defendant insisted that merely advising a witness to plead the Fifth Amendment could not constitute an obstruction of justice. The Second Circuit disagreed. Affirming a district court jury instruction, the court found that “one who ... advises with corrupt motive a witness to take [the Fifth Amendment], can and does obstruct or influence the administration of justice.” Id. at 1119. The court added that “[t]he lawful behavior of the person invoking the Amendment cannot be used to protect the criminal behavior of the inducer.” Id.
Similarly, in Cole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437 (9th Cir.1964), a Ninth Circuit case that interpreted the old § 1503, the court noted that even an innocent act, such as claiming Fifth Amendment protection, “may make another a criminal who sees that the innocent act is accomplished for a corrupt purpose.” Id. at 439-40. The court affirmed a jury finding that the defendant, who had advised several individuals to take the Fifth Amendment, illegally obstructed justice because his advice was given in order to benefit himself.
Nor does the fact that Farrell and Bachetti were coconspirators affect this analysis. The court in United States v. Cortese, 568 F.Supp. 119 (M.D.Pa.1983), faced a situation quite similar to Farrell. In Córtese, one coconspirator had claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before a grand jury. After declaring that the Fifth Amendment privilege is a “personal one,” the court found that liability could attach if “a coconspirator can be shown by ... corrupt motive to have induced his ally to invoke the [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” Id. at 129.
Farrell’s purpose in the present matter was improper: he sought to induce Bachetti to withhold information regarding the commission of a crime in order to shield Farrell himself from an honest investigation of what had occurred. Such self-interested behavior constitutes corrupt persuasion because it is “motivated by an improper purpose,” i.e. a purpose different from Bachetti’s personal constitutional right to remain silent. On the facts of this case, I believe that the district court properly ruled that Farrell violated § 1512 by advising Bachetti to refuse to cooperate with investigators. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

. To be sure, "improper purpose” may not always be self-defining, and may require further analysis in some situations. One who withholds evidence of tax evasion in order to avoid supporting governmental policies he dislikes may (incorrectly) claim to have acted properly because of the purported purity of his motive. A newspaper that challenges a criminal prosecution may, in the eyes of some, be acting with an improper purpose, yet may still be protected by the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the fact that the meaning of “improper purpose” is not always utterly clear does not eliminate its utility in helping further define and limit the thrust of the statute.