And... https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-contemplated-justice/ https://www.subjecttoinquiry.com/2014/04/obstruction-of-cont... And... h

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.