6 ms·

> Destroying evidence is legal all day long Absolutely not the case. (edited to use a better reference) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 https

> Destroying evidence is legal all day long Absolutely not the case. (edited to use a better reference) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 > Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. "... or in contemplation of..."

metabagel 25d ago
And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... ----- The defendant need not know a matter was pending or within federal jurisdiction. Instead, the “knowingly” element refers only to the obstructive conduct. United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 208 (3rd Cir. 2012). The federal nature of the statute’s prohibition is a jurisdictional requirement, but not a substantive element under Section 1519. United States v. McRae, 702 F.3d 806, 834 (5th Cir. 2012). No nexus requirement. Given that an investigation or matter within federal jurisdiction need not be initiated or even pending at the time of the obstructive conduct, the government need not prove any connection between the alleged obstructive conduct and the federal matter. Moyer, at 209; United States v. Gray, 692 F.3d 514, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2012). Materiality is not an element. As an example, falsification through omission from a log or report can support a conviction, without proof of the materiality of the omission. Powell, at 356; Moyer, at 207-08.

metabagel 25d ago

And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... ----- The defendant need not know a matter was pending or within federal jurisdiction. Instead, the “knowingly” element refers only to the obstructive conduct. United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 208 (3rd Cir. 2012). The federal nature of the statute’s prohibition is a jurisdictional requirement, but not a substantive element under Section 1519. United States v. McRae, 702 F.3d 806, 834 (5th Cir. 2012). No nexus requirement. Given that an investigation or matter within federal jurisdiction need not be initiated or even pending at the time of the obstructive conduct, the government need not prove any connection between the alleged obstructive conduct and the federal matter. Moyer, at 209; United States v. Gray, 692 F.3d 514, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2012). Materiality is not an element. As an example, falsification through omission from a log or report can support a conviction, without proof of the materiality of the omission. Powell, at 356; Moyer, at 207-08.