United States v. House
2008 WL 5412109, 551 F.3d 694 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is appropriate if a defendant willfully attempts to unlawfully influence a witness, which includes asking a witness not to testify, even without direct threats or intimidation. A sentencing court may rely on hearsay testimony to support such an enhancement, provided the testimony has sufficient indicia of reliability.
Facts:
- In February 2005, Adonis House met Sylvester Avery, a government informant posing as a cocaine trafficker, and agreed to help him find a narcotics supplier.
- In March 2005, Avery introduced House to an undercover FBI agent, Mark Horton, who was posing as a high-level drug dealer.
- On April 5, 2005, House facilitated a deal where he took $2700 from Horton, obtained about four ounces of crack cocaine from a supplier, LaPriest Gary, and delivered it to Avery and Horton.
- On May 20, 2005, House arranged a second transaction, taking $2900 from Horton via Avery and returning with another quantity of crack cocaine.
- After learning through discovery that Avery was a government witness scheduled to testify against him, House asked a friend, Mary Brown, to locate Avery.
- At House's instruction, Brown encountered Avery at a traffic accident scene and asked him not to testify against House.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois returned an indictment charging Adonis House with two counts of distributing crack cocaine.
- Following a trial, a federal jury found House guilty on both counts.
- At the sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on House's attempt to influence a witness.
- The district court sentenced House to 188 months in prison.
- House (appellant) appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the obstruction of justice enhancement.
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 act of asking a third party to contact a government witness and ask that witness not to testify constitute a willful attempt to obstruct justice, justifying a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, even if the request was not accompanied by intimidation?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge
Yes. A defendant's act of asking a third party to ask a witness not to testify constitutes a willful attempt to obstruct justice under the sentencing guidelines, even without intimidation. The guideline for obstruction of justice is designed to punish not only threats but also any conduct that amounts to 'otherwise unlawfully influencing' a witness. The court defined 'unlawfully influencing' as intentionally engaging in conduct with a 'natural tendency to suppress or interfere with the discovery of truth.' Therefore, the bare attempt to persuade a witness not to provide truthful testimony is sufficient to trigger the enhancement. Although the evidence of House's specific intent was based on an FBI agent's hearsay testimony, sentencing courts are permitted to consider such testimony as long as it has 'sufficient indicia of reliability.' The district court found the agent's testimony credible, which provided an adequate factual basis for the enhancement, and this finding was not clear error.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad scope of the obstruction of justice enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, clarifying that it applies to any willful attempt to persuade a witness not to testify, even without overt threats. The case underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to a trial court's factual findings at sentencing, particularly regarding witness credibility. It also highlights the lower evidentiary bar at sentencing hearings, where hearsay is permissible if deemed reliable, which can significantly impact a defendant's final sentence based on evidence not subject to trial's rigorous standards.
