United States v. Jon Burge
2013 WL 1285582, 711 F.3d 803, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6418 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Obstructive conduct, such as providing false statements in written interrogatories, violates the federal obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), even if the conduct does not occur in the physical presence of a judge or during a formal court session.
Facts:
- Jon Burge was a commanding officer in the Chicago Police Department (CPD) during the 1970s and 1980s.
- Throughout his career, over one hundred individuals accused Burge and officers under his command of torturing suspects to obtain confessions, using methods like suffocation, electrocution, and mock executions.
- Burge was fired from the CPD in 1993 following an investigation into the allegations but was never criminally charged for the abuse itself, partly due to statutes of limitation.
- In 2003, Madison Hobley filed a civil lawsuit alleging he was tortured by officers at Area 2 in 1987 and that the CPD had a policy and practice of torture.
- During the discovery phase of Hobley's lawsuit, Burge was served with written interrogatories.
- In his sworn, written responses to these interrogatories, Burge denied ever using or being aware of other officers using any form of physical coercion or torture on suspects.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted Jon Burge in federal district court on two counts of obstruction of an official proceeding and one count of perjury.
- Burge filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the obstruction counts, arguing his conduct did not occur 'before' a court as required by the statute; the district court denied the motion.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- During the trial, the district court denied Burge's motion for a mistrial, which was based on newly disclosed evidence about the underlying civil plaintiff.
- The jury convicted Burge on all three counts.
- The district court sentenced Burge to 54 months in prison.
- Burge appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. 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 providing false written answers to interrogatories in a civil lawsuit constitute obstruction of an 'official proceeding' under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), even though the obstructive act did not occur physically 'before' a judge or court?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge.
Yes, providing false written answers to interrogatories constitutes obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The statute's requirement that an 'official proceeding' be 'before a judge or court' defines the type of proceeding being obstructed, not the physical location where the obstructive act must occur. The court reasoned that other statutory provisions, such as § 1512(f) (which states a proceeding need not be pending) and the catch-all nature of the word 'otherwise' in § 1512(c)(2), support a broad interpretation that includes pretrial misconduct. Requiring the act to occur in a judge's presence would lead to absurd results, as it would exclude common obstructive acts like shredding documents in an office. Therefore, Burge's false statements, intended to impede a federal civil suit, fall squarely within the statute's prohibition.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad interpretation of the federal obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), affirming that pretrial misconduct outside the courtroom can be prosecuted. It establishes that the statute's reach is not limited by the physical location of the obstructive act, but by the act's intent to corruptly impede an official proceeding. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to police the integrity of the entire judicial process, including the discovery phase, and puts litigants on notice that lying in written discovery can lead to severe criminal penalties.
