Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Obstruction of (Contemplated) Justice
Imagine you are a federal prosecutor and the following fact pattern lands on your desk: A college student gains unauthorized access to the e-mail account of a candidate for federal office. The student changes the e-mail account password and then shares the new password on an Internet message board. Within one day, fearing a possible (but not-yet initiated) investigation, he takes steps to delete information from his computer related to his unauthorized access. Based on these facts, what charges would you consider? Identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1028? Wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1343? A charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. ' 1030)?
Each of those charges seems like a logical choice, in no small part because they were in fact charged in the case from which the fact-pattern was taken. See United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012). But what about obstruction of justice, given that the alleged deletion of the information occurred before any government investigation or judicial proceeding had been initiated? Just such a charge was brought under 18 U.S.C. ' 1519, a relatively obscure but potentially powerful statute that has considerably expanded the scope of obstruction of justice. It is seeing increased use, and could prove to be a powerful tool in the federal prosecutor's toolbox. Reflective of its growing attention, as discussed further below, it is the subject of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that will examine just how broadly this statute may reach.
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.