United States v. Baldridge
2009 WL 692107, 559 F.3d 1126, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-coercive attempt to persuade a witness to provide false or misleading information to law enforcement investigators constitutes "corrupt persuasion" in violation of the federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b).
Facts:
- From 2003 to 2006, Randy Lee Baldridge served as an elected commissioner for Rogers County, Oklahoma.
- In 2004, Baldridge arranged for a salaried county employee, Bruce Long, to perform contract work on the Dog Creek Project and had payment sent to Long's friend, Brad Jones, on an invoice with inflated hours.
- Between 2004 and 2005, Baldridge hired Brian Rash to perform work at his sister's private residence and arranged for the County to pay Rash over $6,000 through four separate fraudulent invoices for county work.
- After one fraudulent payment to Rash, Baldridge took the cash from Rash's wife, stating he needed to "borrow" it, and never repaid the money.
- In 2005, Baldridge had the County issue a $1,700 warrant to his friend, Joseph Bentz, for concrete bridge work that was never performed. Bentz subsequently paid Baldridge $700 from these funds.
- In 2005, Baldridge used a county contractor and county-paid asphalt to pave a private driveway for Robert Portiss, then instructed Portiss to make the $3,000 payment to Brad Jones, from which Baldridge received the majority of the cash.
- After an FBI investigation began in March 2006, Baldridge told Brian Rash to lie to agents, instructing him to say he mowed a county area and not to mention the work at his sister's private residence.
- Baldridge also visited Joseph Bentz and told him to stick to the false story that he had performed the concrete work for the county, later sending him documents that appeared to be a Q&A script for investigators.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Lee Baldridge was charged in the U.S. District Court (trial court) with conspiracy, fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and corrupt persuasion.
- Following a six-day trial, a jury found Baldridge guilty on eight of the nine counts.
- The trial court sentenced Baldridge to thirty-seven months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.
- Baldridge (appellant) filed a timely appeal of his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 a defendant's non-coercive attempt to persuade a witness to provide false information to investigators constitute 'corrupt persuasion' in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Brien, J.
Yes, a non-coercive attempt to persuade a witness to provide false information to investigators constitutes 'corrupt persuasion' under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b). The court determined that the phrase 'corruptly persuades' does not require threats, intimidation, or coercion. Aligning with numerous other circuits, the court found that the term is meant to encompass attempts to influence an investigation by persuading a witness to lie. The evidence showed Baldridge knew the claims he instructed Rash and Bentz to make were false, and he did so with the intent to hinder the federal investigation for his own benefit. The court also affirmed Baldridge's other convictions, finding sufficient evidence for mail fraud because the mailings were incident to an essential part of the scheme, for money laundering because he used third parties to conceal the source and ownership of illicit funds, for violating § 666 because the fraud and federal funding occurred within the statutorily defined one-year period, and for conspiracy with at least the Rashes.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of 'corruptly persuades' in the federal witness tampering statute, aligning it with the majority of other federal circuits. It establishes that the statute criminalizes non-coercive conduct, focusing on the defendant's intent to subvert the truth-seeking process of an investigation rather than the method of persuasion. This broad interpretation lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in obstruction of justice cases, making it clear that merely encouraging or suggesting a false narrative to a potential witness is sufficient to establish guilt, without any need to prove threats or bribery.
