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

defendantattorneystatuteburden of proofprobationlegislative intent
defendantattorneyburden of proofprobationlegislative intent

Related Cases

Lilyhorn v. Dier, 214 Neb. 728, 335 N.W.2d 554
View Case »
Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corp. v. Norwest Bank of Jamestown, N.W., 854 F.2d 1122
View Case »
Finley v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 907, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8800, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9104
View Case »
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1169, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,618
View Case »
Cheney v. Wells, 23 Misc.3d 161, 877 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28480
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Kloess, 97 F.Supp.2d 1084

Facts

Kloess, an attorney, was indicted on two counts related to his representation of Gene Easterling, a convicted felon on probation. The indictment alleged that Kloess misrepresented Easterling's identity to a judge in an attempt to conceal Easterling's arrest for possessing a firearm. Kloess argued that his actions fell under the safe harbor provision of the law, which protects lawful legal representation from being classified as obstruction of justice.

Kloess, an attorney, was indicted on two counts related to his representation of Gene Easterling, a convicted felon on probation.

Issue

Whether the safe harbor provision in 18 U.S.C. § 1515(c) is an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) that the government must disprove, or whether it is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.

Whether the safe harbor provision in 18 U.S.C. § 1515(c) is an element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) that the government must disprove, or whether it is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.

Rule

The court determined that the safe harbor provision is an element of the offense that must be disproved by the government, rather than an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish.

The court determined that the safe harbor provision is an element of the offense that must be disproved by the government, rather than an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language and legislative intent behind the safe harbor provision, concluding that it serves as a definitional limitation on the conduct that constitutes obstruction of justice. The court emphasized that the absence of a clear statement in the statute indicating that the safe harbor is an affirmative defense supports the interpretation that it is an element of the offense.

The court analyzed the statutory language and legislative intent behind the safe harbor provision, concluding that it serves as a definitional limitation on the conduct that constitutes obstruction of justice.

Conclusion

The court rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the indictment against Kloess, ruling that the government must prove that Kloess was not providing lawful, bona fide legal representation.

The court rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the indictment against Kloess, ruling that the government must prove that Kloess was not providing lawful, bona fide legal representation.

Who won?

Defendant Kloess prevailed in the case because the court found that the government failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the safe harbor provision.

Defendant Kloess prevailed in the case because the court found that the government failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the safe harbor provision.

You must be