Court Opinion

ID: 9806986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:42:34.737174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:07.287728
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge KOZINSKI; Concurrence by Judge N.R. SMITH; Concurrence by Judge
REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge W. FLETCHER; Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question. Because there is insufficient evidence that Statement C was material, defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is not supported by the record. Whatever section 1503’s scope may be in other circumstances, defendant’s conviction here must be reversed.
A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant’s right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1028 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count.
REVERSED.