Court Opinion

ID: 9477198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:17:14.095471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:45.500796
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The decision of the majority correctly states the issue to be “does one 'endeavor to obstruct justice’ by obtaining or giving a false statement with the intent that it be used in a judicial proceeding when the statement is never used in a judicial proceeding and never given or caused to be given to a prosecutor or other officer of the *1576court?” Because I believe one does not endeavor to obstruct justice by simply obtaining a false statement but never submitting the statement to the prosecutor or the court, I dissent.
Fields simply solicited and obtained a false exculpatory statement from Wilhite. The statement was made to Fields’ attorney, but was never presented to the prosecutor nor used in a judicial proceeding. In its application of United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460 (11th Cir.1985), the majority improperly focuses on the fact that in this case a false statement was obtained. The Brand court, however, was wary of establishing a precedent allowing obstruction of justice charges whenever attorneys and other investigators obtain a false statement from a witness in the course of a regular investigation. Congress has not manifested an intent to extend section 1503 to all instances where counsel obtains a false statement from a witness. Absent clear congressional intent, section 1503 must be strictly construed.
I would reverse the conviction.