Content area
Full Text
This Note analyzes conflicting trends in caselaw interpreting the nexus requirement for obstruction-of-justice offenses under United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995), and it argues that knowledge that one s actions are likely to affect an official proceeding remains an essential element of the nexus requirement. This Note is important because mainstream attention on obstruction of justice has put the offense in clear public view. But more importantly, diverging courts of appeals opinions have created confusion as to what obstruction of justice requires. The lingering circuit split on the role of knowledge in the nexus requirement creates inconsistent standards throughout the country. This result is particularly troubling because of the breadth of obstruction-of-justice offenses generally and 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) in particular. This Note works toward resolving conflicts in obstruction-of-justice law by carefully analyzing the Supreme Courts statements on obstruction of justice, tracing the application of those cases across the circuits, and arguing for a best interpretation of the nexus requirement that includes knowledge.
Introduction
In the spring of 2019, the public at large became keenly aware of the crime of obstruction of justice. Through March and April, the nation waited in anxious anticipation for the publication of the Mueller Report to see whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired then-Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey.1 The Mueller Report ultimately declined either to recommend a charge of obstruction of justice or to exonerate the President.2 Meanwhile, on March 12,2019, the Varsity Blues scandal orchestrated by Rick Singer staked its claim for the publics attention when U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling unveiled the $25-million-dollar college· admissions scheme at a Boston press conference.3 The charges to which Mr. Singer pleaded guilty included obstruction of justice for tipping off parents to the federal probe.4
In the midst of those national events, the legal world received a third helping at this obstruction-of-justice feast when the Fourth Circuit reinforced a circuit split by adhering to a mens rea understanding of the so-called "nexus requirement."5 The Fourth Circuit, joining the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, held that knowledge is an essential element of an obstruction-of-justice charge under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2),6 in contrast to the Second and Tenth Circuits, which do not require knowledge.7 That circuit split raised obstruction of justice...