No. 21-7530

Paul M. Weadick v. United States

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2022-04-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-1512 circuit-split criminal-procedure federal-statute federal-witness-tampering fowler-v-united-states reasonable-likelihood specific-intent statutory-interpretation witness-tampering
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference: 2022-04-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 'reasonable likelihood' standard applies even when the witness may not have made any communication to any officials at all

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, permits conviction of any individual who “prevent[s] the communication by any person to a [Federal] law enforcement officer .. . of information relating to the commission . .. of a Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C). The statute requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to prevent the witness from communicating with federal officials. Jd. This Court held in Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011), that, when the defendant did not have a particular official or group of officials in mind, but acted with an intent to prevent communications to any and all officials — including federal officers — the statute may be satisfied by proof that there was a “reasonable likelihood” that the witness would have spoken to a federal official about the offense. 563 U.S. at 677-78. The question presented is whether, as some circuits (including the court of appeals in this case) have held, that the “reasonable likelihood” standard applies even in cases in which the witness may not have made any communication to any officials at all. i

Docket Entries

2022-05-02
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
2022-04-12
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-03-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 4, 2022)

Attorneys

Paul Weadick
Mark William SheaShea & LaRocque LLP, Petitioner
Mark William SheaShea & LaRocque LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent