United States v. Amiel Cueto
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 17569, 151 F.3d 620, 1998 WL 430367 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Otherwise lawful, litigation-related conduct by an attorney violates the omnibus clause of the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, when the attorney acts with the corrupt intent to impede the due administration of justice. An attorney's personal financial interest in a client's ongoing criminal enterprise can supply the requisite corrupt motive.
Facts:
- Thomas Venezia operated an illegal video gambling business through his company, B & H Vending.
- Venezia hired attorney Amiel Cueto to represent him and others involved in the illegal operation.
- While representing Venezia, Cueto entered into several business partnerships with him, including co-owning a nightclub and an asbestos removal company.
- These joint ventures were financed using assets and income from Venezia's illegal gambling business, giving Cueto a direct financial stake in its continued operation.
- As state and federal authorities, led in part by ILCC Agent Bonds Robinson, investigated the gambling ring, Cueto began a campaign to thwart the investigation.
- Cueto filed a state court lawsuit against Agent Robinson alleging corruption, obtained a fraudulent court order to lure Robinson to a hearing, and secured an injunction against Robinson under circumstances later found to have violated Robinson's due process rights.
- Cueto repeatedly urged the local State's Attorney to indict Agent Robinson for perjury, and later contacted a Congressman who was also a business partner to seek help in having himself appointed as the new State's Attorney.
- During the federal grand jury investigation and subsequent racketeering prosecution of Venezia, Cueto prepared and urged defense counsel to file false and obstructive motions intended to delay and disrupt the proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Venezia and his company were indicted on federal racketeering and illegal gambling charges in the U.S. District Court.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Venezia and his company in December 1995.
- Seven months later, a federal grand jury returned a separate indictment against attorney Amiel Cueto, Venezia, and another individual.
- Cueto was charged in the U.S. District Court with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and multiple counts of obstruction of justice.
- Following a jury trial, Cueto was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and three counts of obstruction of justice.
- Cueto appealed his convictions and the resulting sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's litigation-related conduct, such as filing lawsuits and motions, constitute a criminal obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 when the attorney has a personal financial interest in the client's criminal enterprise and acts with the corrupt intent to protect that enterprise from investigation and prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Bauer, Circuit Judge.
Yes. An attorney's litigation-related conduct constitutes criminal obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 when performed with the corrupt intent to protect a client's criminal enterprise in which the attorney has a personal financial interest. The court affirmed that the key element of the offense is the defendant's corrupt endeavor, not the specific means employed. Otherwise lawful conduct, including an attorney's acts in representing a client, can transgress § 1503 if performed with a corrupt motive. Here, Cueto's significant personal financial interest in Venezia's illegal gambling operation provided the corrupt motive that transformed his actions from zealous advocacy into criminal obstruction. The court rejected the argument that this application of the statute would chill vigorous advocacy, stating that an attorney's status does not provide a shield from prosecution for criminal conduct and that a 'criminal lawyer has no license to act as a lawyer-criminal.' The evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury's conclusion that Cueto's conduct was not legitimate lawyering but a corrupt attempt to protect his financial interests by impeding the lawful functions of the FBI, the grand jury, and the district court.
Analysis:
This case is significant for delineating the boundary between permissible, zealous legal advocacy and criminal obstruction of justice. It establishes that an attorney's personal financial stake in a client's criminal enterprise can serve as powerful evidence of the 'corrupt intent' required for an obstruction conviction, even when the acts themselves are superficially litigation-related. The decision serves as a crucial warning to the criminal defense bar that conflicts of interest, particularly financial ones, can transform otherwise defensible legal tactics into federal crimes. This precedent reinforces the broad, catch-all nature of § 1503's omnibus clause, confirming its application to sophisticated schemes designed to undermine the justice system from within.
