United States v. Friske
640 F.3d 1288, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10022, 2011 WL 1878776 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a conviction for obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of, or at least foresaw, the specific official proceeding they allegedly attempted to obstruct.
Facts:
- William Erickson, who was in jail on drug charges, placed a recorded phone call to his friend, Dennis Friske, on October 13, 2008.
- In the call, Erickson asked Friske to travel from Wisconsin to Erickson's Florida home to perform a "little repair job" which involved retrieving "three things" from under the pool decking.
- Law enforcement agents, after hearing the call, obtained a search warrant for Erickson's property and, on October 15, 2008, unearthed three PVC pipes containing $375,000 from under the pool deck.
- The agents recovered the money and smoothed over the ground to conceal their excavation.
- On October 16, 2008, agents found Friske at the property; he was wet, had dirt on him, and was wearing gloves.
- Friske admitted he was there to recover items for a friend and gave agents permission to search his van, where they found letters from Erickson with hand-drawn diagrams of the property.
- Agents observed that two new holes had been dug under the pool deck where the money had been buried.
- When confronted by agents, Friske stated, "Look, these are my friends. I’m not going to cooperate against my friends."
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis Friske was charged in a federal district court with attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
- Following a trial, a jury found Friske guilty.
- Friske filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
- The District Court denied Friske's motion.
- Friske, as appellant, appealed the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 conviction for attempting to obstruct an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) require the government to prove that the defendant knew of or foresaw the specific proceeding he allegedly attempted to obstruct?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, Circuit Judge
Yes. To sustain a conviction for attempting to obstruct an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), the government must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the specific proceeding. The court extends the 'nexus' requirement established in United States v. Aguilar for a similar statute, § 1503, to § 1512(c)(2). This nexus requires a relationship in time, causation, or logic between the defendant's act and the official proceeding. The court reasoned that if a defendant lacks knowledge that his actions are likely to affect a judicial proceeding, he necessarily lacks the requisite 'corrupt' intent to obstruct it. While the statute does not require a proceeding to be pending at the time of the offense, case law from Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States clarifies that the proceeding must at least be foreseen. In this case, while Friske's actions were suspicious, the government presented no evidence that he knew about the specific forfeiture proceeding involving Erickson's assets. The jury's conclusion that he must have known was based on mere speculation, which is insufficient to support a criminal conviction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the mens rea (intent) requirement for obstruction of justice charges under § 1512(c)(2) in the Eleventh Circuit, aligning it with other circuits. By explicitly applying the 'nexus' requirement, the court raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutors, requiring them to prove a defendant's specific knowledge of an official proceeding, not just that the defendant engaged in generally suspicious or illicit conduct. This holding protects individuals from being convicted of a serious felony for actions that, while questionable, were undertaken without the specific intent to interfere with the administration of justice because the person was unaware of the proceeding in question.
