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

defendantstatutehearingpiracy

defendantstatute

Related Cases

U.S. v. Ermoian, 727 F.3d 894, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8879, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,858

Facts

In 2006, the Central Valley Gang Impact Task Force (CVGIT) began investigating the Hells Angels motorcycle gang in Modesto, California, suspecting them of criminal activities. To prevent leaks of sensitive information, the CVGIT distributed a 'Gang Intelligence Bulletin' to local law enforcement, which led to defendants Ermoian and Johnson receiving warnings about the investigation. They subsequently took actions to obstruct the investigation, which resulted in their indictment for conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

The facts of this case read like an episode of the fictional television drama Sons of Anarchy. Sometime in 2006, the Central Valley Gang Impact Task Force ('CVGIT')—a United States Department of Justice ('DOJ')-funded group tasked with coordinating local law enforcement efforts to eliminate gang-related crimes in California's Central Valley—learned that the Hells Angels motorcycle gang was attempting to establish a chapter in Modesto, California.

Issue

Did the district court err in determining that an FBI investigation qualifies as an 'official proceeding' under the statute criminalizing obstruction of justice?

We must decide whether an FBI investigation qualifies as an 'official proceeding' under a federal statute criminalizing obstruction of justice.

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, an 'official proceeding' is defined as a proceeding before a judge, court, Congress, or a Federal Government agency authorized by law, and does not include informal investigations.

The statute under which the defendants were convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), prohibits 'corruptly … obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] any official proceeding, or attempt[ing] to do so.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory definition of 'official proceeding' and concluded that the term 'proceeding' implies a formal legal action, which an FBI investigation does not constitute. The court emphasized that the context of the statute suggests that 'official proceeding' refers to formal hearings or actions authorized by law, rather than informal investigations.

Thus the definition of the term 'proceeding' strongly suggests that 'a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law' does not encompass a criminal investigation.

Conclusion

The court reversed the convictions of Ermoian and Johnson, holding that the district court's instruction to the jury was legally erroneous because an FBI investigation is not an official proceeding under the obstruction of justice statute.

The district court in this case instructed the jury that 'an 'official proceeding' includes an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.' As we have already determined, such instruction was legally erroneous: an FBI investigation is not an official proceeding under the obstruction of justice statute.

Who won?

Defendants Gary L. Ermoian and Stephen J. Johnson prevailed because the court found that their actions did not meet the legal definition of obstructing an official proceeding.

The Government's concession regarding the sufficiency of the evidence conclusively resolves this case in the defendants' favor.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Baylson v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 764 F.Supp. 328, 59 USLW 2742

Seidel v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 616 F.Supp. 1342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,383

Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1

Matter of Simels, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1993 WL 524939

Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557, 198 P.3d 1109, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 700, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 981, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1190