Tweet
Originally posted by seskridge
In McDonald's case, the district court based the obstruction of justice enhancement on: (1) Callahan's testimony that, when she visited McDonald while he was incarcerated, he showed her a note urging her not to say anything about the knife; and (2) the letter McDonald wrote to Callahan which stated in part, "I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you[.]" The district court did not err by finding Callahan's testimony "totally believable," nor did it err by imposing a two-level increase for obstruction of justice based on McDonald's attempts to prevent Callahan from revealing McDonald carried a concealed knife during the bank robbery.
Johnson later confronted Twiggs, saying: "You was seen with Steve Lamar and that it wasn't healthy."
Based on this threat, the district court enhanced Johnson's sentence two levels for obstruction of justice, stating:
the obstruction of justice goes to the threats, the intimidation, and specifically the threat against the witness John Twiggs where he was seen in a car with officer Lamar and later Mr. Johnson told him to the effect that I hope you aren't doing what I think your doing because that's unhealthy . . . I think anybody in their ordinary meaning of that would take that as a threat.
We review a district court's finding that a defendant obstructed justice for clear error. United States v. Wright, 37 F.3d 358, 361 (7th Cir. 1994). Johnson asserts that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous in this case because he did not know that Twiggs was a government witness. We disagree. 1A threat to a potential witness is sufficient to warrant an enhancement under section 3C1.1, as long as the statement was intended to threaten, intimidate or unlawfully influence that person. United States v. Cherif, 943 F.2d 692, 703 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Sanchez, 35 F.3d 673, 680 639 *639 (2d Cir. 1994). Johnson also makes this claim, namely that his statement to Twiggs was not a threat. The district court disagreed, however, finding that the ordinary meaning of Johnson's statement "[y]ou was seen with Steve Lamar and that it wasn't healthy" constituted a threat. This finding was not clearly erroneous.
Based on this threat, the district court enhanced Johnson's sentence two levels for obstruction of justice, stating:
the obstruction of justice goes to the threats, the intimidation, and specifically the threat against the witness John Twiggs where he was seen in a car with officer Lamar and later Mr. Johnson told him to the effect that I hope you aren't doing what I think your doing because that's unhealthy . . . I think anybody in their ordinary meaning of that would take that as a threat.
We review a district court's finding that a defendant obstructed justice for clear error. United States v. Wright, 37 F.3d 358, 361 (7th Cir. 1994). Johnson asserts that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous in this case because he did not know that Twiggs was a government witness. We disagree. 1A threat to a potential witness is sufficient to warrant an enhancement under section 3C1.1, as long as the statement was intended to threaten, intimidate or unlawfully influence that person. United States v. Cherif, 943 F.2d 692, 703 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Sanchez, 35 F.3d 673, 680 639 *639 (2d Cir. 1994). Johnson also makes this claim, namely that his statement to Twiggs was not a threat. The district court disagreed, however, finding that the ordinary meaning of Johnson's statement "[y]ou was seen with Steve Lamar and that it wasn't healthy" constituted a threat. This finding was not clearly erroneous.
This one is a big mystery to me. I read http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20...%20v.%20CHUJOY and couldn't find the instance where the phrase "I hope" was used in any manner that would constitute obstruction.
Comment