Court Opinion

ID: 9486904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:03:37.83856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:00.132051
License: Public Domain

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Because I believe that Johns was not exercising his constitutional rights when he provided materially false information to his probation officer, I would vote to affirm the enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of justice. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
This Court has never articulated the precise scope of the term “denial of guilt” under the obstruction of justice guideline. There can be no dispute that a defendant has the absolute constitutional right to remain silent and to plead not guilty, thereby forcing the government to prove every aspect of its case. The majority, however, interprets Application Note 1 as providing defendants greater protection than the Fifth Amendment does. I disagree. I believe that a defendant who lies to a probation officer or another officer of the court about matters material to the issue under determination is obstructing justice, even if his misstatements are phrased as denials of wrongdoing. See United States v. Lange, 918 F.2d 707, 709 (8th Cir.1990) (“We read the phrase ‘denial of guilt’ to refer to a defendant’s constitutional right to put the government to its proof by pleading not guilty to the offense charged.”).
Application Note 1 was not intended to confer on defendants any rights greater than those granted to them by the Fifth Amendment. As the first sentence of the note indicates, the note simply clarifies the obvious rule that a defendant’s sentence cannot *37be enhanced when he exercises his constitutional rights.
In Johns’s case, none of his affirmative statements constituted the exercise of his constitutional rights. Johns answered “No” to the general question regarding uncharged drug transactions, denied involvement with Villone and Andrews, and denied making pri- or admissions to the police. These statements are not denials of guilt in the constitutional sense. Whether there is a principled basis for distinguishing between “laconic noes and the same lies expressed in full sentences” is not the issue. Even a laconic no constitutes an obstruction of justice because it does not reflect the exercise of a constitutional right.
Johns’s conduct epitomizes obstruction of justice. Instead of refraining from incriminating himself or remaining silent, as he is entitled to do under the Fifth Amendment, Johns chose to lie. To say, as the majority does, that Johns was simply exercising his Fifth Amendment rights essentially affords defendants a constitutional right to deceive officers of the court. There is no constitutional right to lie. I would affirm the enhancement of Johns’s sentence for obstruction of justice.