Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdefendantstatutetrialgrand jury
defendantgrand jury

Related Cases

Winters v. Cook, 489 F.2d 174
View Case »
State v. von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995, 47 A.L.R.4th 455
View Case »
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389, 68 USLW 4263, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3949, 00 CJ C.A.R. 2064, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 225
View Case »
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674
View Case »
Mahoney v. Shaheen, Cappiello, Stein & Gordon, P.A., 143 N.H. 491, 727 A.2d 996
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Faudman, 640 F.2d 20

Facts

The defendant admitted to altering and defacing records of the Borman Company during a federal grand jury investigation into possible Medicare and Medicaid fraud. He was aware that the company's directors had resolved to cooperate with the grand jury and that the records he altered had been requested by the FBI. The defendant's defense at trial included claims that his actions were not covered by § 1503 and that he lacked the intent to obstruct justice due to a psychiatric condition.

The defendant admitted to altering and defacing records of the Borman Company during a federal grand jury investigation into possible Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

Issue

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1503 can be the basis for prosecuting a person who alters or destroys corporate records with knowledge that the records are being sought by a grand jury.

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1503 can be the basis for prosecuting a person who alters or destroys corporate records with knowledge that the records are being sought by a grand jury.

Rule

The language of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is broad enough to cover acts that corruptly obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, including altering records sought by a grand jury.

The language of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is broad enough to cover acts that corruptly obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, including altering records sought by a grand jury.

Analysis

The court determined that the defendant's actions of altering corporate records were intended to impede the grand jury's investigation. The court rejected the defendant's argument that § 1503 only applies to threats or intimidation, stating that the statute's language encompasses a wider range of obstructive conduct. The court found that the defendant's conduct was aimed at distorting evidence and thus violated the statute.

The court determined that the defendant's actions of altering corporate records were intended to impede the grand jury's investigation.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the defendant's actions constituted obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the defendant's actions constituted obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court found that the defendant's actions clearly obstructed the grand jury's investigation.

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court found that the defendant's actions clearly obstructed the grand jury's investigation.

You must be