We also provide practical advice on how to comply with the obstruction of justice statutes.II. OBSTRUCTING THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE UNDER18 U.S.C. § 1503.Lawyers conducting internal investigations must be aware of the obstruction of justice statute codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The "omnibus clause" makes it a federal crime to obstruct a judicial proceeding.

By accepting a presidential pardon that would effectively negate his plea deal, Michael Flynn could potentially be charged with obstructing justice. There are three general obstruction of justice laws:Obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503);Witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512); andObstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1505);Flynn would more than likely be charged under § 1503 which entails four methods of obstruction—three of which apply to interfering with federal jurors or court officials while the fourth, its omnibus provision, applies specifically to interference with the “due administration of justice.”Flynn’s acceptance of a Trump pardon could constitute obstruction of the “due administration of justice” omnibus provision of § 1503.

I hope you can let this go.”Does this kind of presidential request actually constitute, as Rep. Deutch believes, an obstruction of justice?Is this actual corruption, or just the appearance of it?What Is the Legal Definition of Obstruction of Justice?There are two statutes that could be used to answer this question: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 & 1505.Section 1505, known as the Protection of Processes, Omnibus Clause, would be the first statute the Department of Justice would turn to. A prosecution under this statute would have to establish that: 1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; 2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and 3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, corrupt, or impede the due and proper administration of laws under which the proceeding was pending.The first hurdle for the DOJ would be a determination of whether an FBI investigation qualifies as a “proceeding.”

After taking up the case, the en banc panel tersely ruled as follows:Per Curiam: During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non- responsive answer to a simple question. Because there is insufficient evidence that [the Testimony] was material, defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is not supported by the record. Whatever section 1503’s scope may be in other circumstances, defendant’s conviction here must be reversed.Bonds, 784 F.3d at 582.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government must prove that the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding, such as an investigation or audit, or could reasonably foresee that such a proceeding would commence. The Supreme Court’s decision impacts other criminal obstruction of justice statutes, including 18 USC 1503, which has broad application in criminal investigations. During the period 2004 to 2009, the IRS investigated Marinello’s tax compliance activities.

For example, if the witness was dishonest or intentionally withheld relevant information during the proffer session, the proffer agreement would not shield the witness from prosecution for lying to federal agents. Proffer agreements generally provide that if the witness is determined to have made false statements or omit relevant information during the proffer, she could face charges for obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) or making a false statement or declaration (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1623). Moreover, if the witness subsequently makes statements or takes a position inconsistent with the statements she made during the proffer, then the government could use her statements to rebut that later, inconsistent statement or position. For example, if the witness is later prosecuted and testifies—or even if her lawyer makes an argument—that is inconsistent with her proffer statements, then the government may use her proffer statements to impeach the witness and rebut her “new” position. If the witness is later prosecuted, her testimony and arguments will be constrained to those made during her proffer, lest she be determined to have breached the proffer agreement, which may free up the government to have an agent testify to her proffer statements.While the government might not be able to call a witness to recite a witness’s proffer statements in a later prosecution, it can make “derivative” use of statements and

The Penalties for Obstruction of JusticePotential penalties for obstruction of justice vary depending on which provision of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521 applies.Some examples include:A fine and/or up to six months in federal prison (18 U.S.C. § 1504.);A fine and/or up to eight years in federal prison (18 U.S.C. § 1505);A fine and/or up to twenty years in federal prison (18 U.S.C. § 1503).Prosecution for obstruction of justice can have a profoundly negative impact on one’s career and future employment possibilities as they often result in felony convictions. Further, according to many actors in the justice system and society at large, most of the acts supporting obstruction charges evidence a lack of personal moral integrity.

The Mueller Report left open the question of whether President Trump obstructed or attempted to obstruct any legal investigation into the Russian interference issue.Obstruction of JusticeFederal obstruction of justice laws are numerous, difficult to apply, and not unexpectedly often misapplied. The six core statutes most often used by federal prosecutors are:18 U.S.C. 1503 – obstruction of judicial proceedings;18 U.S.C. 1505 – obstruction of congressional or administrative inquiry;18 U.S.C. 1512 – witness tampering;18 U.S.C. 1513 – witness retaliation;18 U.S.C. 1001- false statement in any matter within jurisdiction of executive, legislative or judicial branch; and18 U.S.C. 371 – conspiracy to commit one of the above or any other criminal act.The media and other sources have outlined the numerous ways in which President Trump possibly obstructed justice. The obstruction statute most applicable to the inquiry surrounding the President, based on information known to the general public, is 18 U.S.C. 1505.

Marinello was convicted of all counts – misdemeanor failure to file charges as well as the felony obstruction charge.The Omnibus Clause forbids:Corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstruct[ing] or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of [the Internal Revenue Code].26 U.S.C. § 7212(a).In interpreting the Clause’s scope, the Court looked to its prior decision in United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995), which addressed the obstruction statute (18 U.S.C. § 1503(a)) that applies to conduct affecting “the due administration of justice.” In Aguilar, the Court limited the statute by interpreting it as requiring a nexus to a judicial proceeding.

The Supreme Court adopted the latter meaning of the phrase, reversing the Second Circuit and requiring the government to prove that the defendant knew of a pending IRS proceeding at the time he committed the obstructive acts or that such a proceeding was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. The Court reached this conclusion by analogizing it to the general obstruction statute, 18 USC § 1503, which makes it a crime to obstruct the “due administration of justice.” In United States v. Aguilar,[3] the Court imposed a “nexus requirement” mandating that the defendant’s act of obstruction have a “relationship in time, causation, or logic with the judicial proceedings.”