speed dating near boston ma - Ronique marshall dating

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit employed this rationale to find a similar obstruction-of-justice statute constitutional. United States, 176 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir.1949) (“The ․ statute is an outgrowth of Congressional recognition of the variety of corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted․”). Though not dispositive, we also observe no court has found the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to routine presentence interviews. Ward, 138 F.3d 810, 821-22 (10th Cir.1998) (no Sixth Amendment violation where a convicted murderer voluntarily offered an inculpatory statement after receiving his Miranda rights); United States v. As the District Court found, the government had not initiated its prosecution of Tyler when he wrote the letter. This interlude demonstrates the probation office acted as a neutral factfinder for Tyler's state sentencing judge, not as an agent for federal prosecutors. Tyler contends the presentence statement was provided by the probation office to the Pennsylvania State Police in violation of his rights to confidentiality and privacy. Tyler's decision to contact his judge was entirely elective, and for purposes of the Sixth Amendment, the probation office did not need to inform Tyler's state court counsel. We also find unpersuasive Tyler's suggestion that the presentence investigation was the “halfway point” between successive state and federal prosecutions. Almost three years passed between Tyler's drafting his presentence letter and his first federal indictment.

Following an invitation from the Adams County Probation Office, Tyler voluntarily submitted a six-page handwritten letter to the court. On appeal, we suppressed Tyler's July 9, 1992 statement, finding the police failed to “scrupulously honor” Tyler's right to remain silent. We remanded to determine whether Tyler waived his Miranda rights before making the July 20 statement.

Tyler's first four pages described his childhood, education, and work experiences.

Sections (a) and (b) of § 1512 each contain state-of-mind requirements on the defendant's intent to obstruct justice. At issue is whether the scienter requirements apply to § 1512(f), which addresses the defendant's knowledge that the proceeding is a federal one (§ 1512(f)(1)) and the defendant's knowledge that the judge or law enforcement officer is acting “for or on behalf of” the federal government (§ 1512(f)(2)). The defendant need not know the law enforcement officers in the proceeding are federally connected. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's rationale in United States v. But as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, Estelle's holding is properly limited to its facts, where the state neither informs defense counsel of its mental examination of the defendant during capital murder proceedings nor allows the defendant assistance of counsel. Rosario, 118 F.3d 160, 163 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Section 1512 requires “proof that the officers with whom the defendant believed the victim might communicate would in fact be federal officers.” Id. We do not find the statement resulted in a “miscarriage of justice” or was otherwise “highly prejudicial.” Virgin Islands v. Provided an out-of-court statement qualifies under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the Confrontation Clause does not require the proponent of the statement to prove the declarant is unavailable.

§ 1512, entitled “Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant,” provides:(a)(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to-(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2).․(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to-(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;(2) cause or induce any person to-(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.․(e) For the purposes of this section-(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense․․(f) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance-(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an advisor or consultant. Tyler was convicted under § 1512(a) (tampering with a witness by murder) and § 1512(b) (tampering with a witness by intimidation and threats), both of which expressly contain “with intent to” provisions. These instructions complied with the elements of the statute. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Tyler's counsel was excluded from the presentence process or that Tyler was forced to proceed without assistance of counsel. Although Sixth Amendment guarantees may apply to uncharged crimes factually related to charged offenses, Texas v. The District Court, at Tyler's request, properly instructed the jury: First of all, I want to emphasize that this case is not about selling narcotics, and there has been no contention and there is no evidence that Mr. So if that got into this case in any way, the government is not arguing that that occurred at all․Tyler's counsel expressed satisfaction with the instruction. Reviewing a claim of insufficiency, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and must sustain a jury's verdict if ‘a reasonable jury believing the government's evidence could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the government proved all the elements of the offenses.’ ” United States v. The evidence showed Ronald Diller, who coordinated the Tri County Drug Force, served the federal government as a “law enforcement officer” under 18 U. The government need not have demonstrated Tyler believed Proctor would communicate with persons whom Tyler “knew or believed to be federal officers.” Bell, 113 F.3d at 1349. Ed.2d 508 (1993) (plain error must be “obvious” and have “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”).

In his federal trial, the government introduced two inculpatory statements by Tyler, one from July 9, 1992 and one from July 20, 1992.

Tyler was convicted of conspiracy to tamper with a witness (18 U.

On May 18, 1993, after a jury trial, Willie Tyler was acquitted of the murder but convicted of intimidating a witness.

The state court ordered a postconviction presentence investigation. The District Court granted Tyler a new trial, finding his post-arrest statements were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Federal authorities launched their own investigation into the death of Doreen Proctor.

Tags: , ,