United States v. Vincent R. Davis
183 F.3d 231, 1999 WL 504702 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To secure a conviction for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the government must prove that a judicial proceeding was pending and that the defendant knew of its pendency. Interference with a law enforcement investigation, such as one involving a wiretap, is insufficient to meet this standard without knowledge of an actual or contemplated grand jury proceeding.
Facts:
- Vincent Davis, a New York Transit Police officer, was obsessed with Richard Sabol, a career criminal who had previously dated Davis's ex-wife, Diane Pelatti.
- Sabol was convicted on federal drug charges but became a confidential informant for U.S. Customs to receive a sentence reduction.
- In an undercover capacity, Sabol infiltrated the Giampa Crew, a branch of the Lucchese crime family, and befriended a member named Gennaro Vittorio.
- Davis learned Sabol was out of prison and, based on his police experience, correctly inferred that Sabol was working as a government informant.
- Motivated by personal animosity and jealousy, Davis decided to expose Sabol's status to the crime family.
- Davis arranged a meeting with Vittorio through his brother-in-law, Michael Lanteri.
- During two meetings on January 25 and March 2, 1994, a heavily intoxicated Davis warned Vittorio that Sabol was a 'rat,' that their phones were tapped, and that Sabol would testify against him.
- During these meetings, Davis suggested Vittorio 'do something about it' and asked Vittorio for a gun, implying Sabol should be killed.
- As a direct result of Davis's warnings, Vittorio and the Giampa Crew ceased their criminal dealings with Sabol, which effectively terminated the Customs investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent Davis was charged in U.S. District Court on an eleven-count indictment including obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, witness tampering, and use of a telephone in aid of racketeering.
- After a jury trial, Davis was convicted on all counts.
- The District Court sentenced Davis to forty-five months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
- Davis, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and certain trial court rulings.
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 interference with a wiretap investigation or a general federal investigation constitute obstruction of the 'due administration of justice' under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, when the defendant has no knowledge of a pending grand jury proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Chief Judge
No. A defendant's interference with a wiretap or general federal investigation does not constitute obstruction of justice under § 1503 without knowledge of a pending judicial proceeding. The court reasoned that § 1503 specifically requires interference with the 'due administration of justice,' which has been consistently interpreted to mean a pending judicial proceeding, like a grand jury investigation. A wiretap, even one subject to judicial supervision, is an investigative tool of the executive branch, analogous to a search warrant, not a judicial proceeding. The government failed to prove a grand jury proceeding was actually pending during Davis's actions. More importantly, the statute requires that the defendant has knowledge of such a proceeding to form the requisite intent to obstruct it. There was no evidence that Davis knew of any grand jury investigation; his knowledge was limited to a law enforcement investigation. Therefore, his conviction for obstruction of justice under § 1503 was reversed for insufficient evidence.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the 'pending judicial proceeding' element of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, reinforcing the critical distinction between interfering with a law enforcement investigation and obstructing the judicial process itself. It clarifies that investigative techniques like wiretaps, despite judicial authorization, do not transform an investigation into a 'judicial proceeding.' The ruling forces prosecutors to rely on other statutes, such as witness tampering (§ 1512), which do not require a pending judicial proceeding, when a defendant's obstructive conduct occurs at the purely investigative stage. This protects defendants from overzealous application of the severe penalties of § 1503 for conduct that, while reprehensible, does not meet the statute's specific requirements.
