UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CAROLYN J. EDLIND
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Shedd, April 10, 2018,
Witness Tampering (Federal) – Encouraging a witness to tell the “truth” that you want them to tell can constitute witness tampering if that “truth” is actually misleading or a lie.
Facts:
In 2014, Adriano Chujoy and his mother were indicted for human trafficking, money laundering, and other offenses.
Carolyn Edlind, Michael Kwiatkowski, and several others formed a “support group” for Chujoy.
When witnesses in the human-trafficking case started getting phone calls from Chujoy coming from unknown numbers, they reported it to federal authorities. Federal agents met with Kwiatkowski and the others. Kwiatkowski told the agents that Chujoy borrowed his phone to make phone calls.
Chujoy was indicted for witness tampering and his release was revoked.
Edlind stayed in contact with Chujoy and hosted several meetings trying to make sure that everyone’s story helped Chujoy.
On March 25, Edlind invited Kwiatkowski and others to her home and asked everyone to leave their cell phones outside. At the meeting, Edlind said that if they were contacted by federal agents they should tell them that “we don’t know anything because we don’t know anything.”
At another meeting, Kwiatkowski was wearing a wire when Edlind had him leave his cell phone outside in her bicycle basket. At this meeting, Edlind told Kwiatkowski that Chujoy wanted him to stop talking. She then “clarified” with Kwiatkowski that the murder Chujoy told him about was a joke. She also told Kwiatkowski that Chujoy wasn’t a manager at the restaurant, that he just volunteered in that capacity. Edlind then told Kwiatkowski to “just tell the truth.”
Edlind was eventually indicted and convicted of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Edlind appealed, arguing that she never forced Kwiatkowski to say anything and that she told him to “just tell the truth.”
Held: The Fourth Circuit held that there was enough evidence for the jury to believe that Edlind was telling Kwiatkowski to tell her version of “the truth,” which was a lie.
Witness Tampering (Federal) – It is illegal to:
– Knowingly
– Use intimidation, threats, or corrupt persuasion or engage in misleading conduct toward another
– With the intent to influence, delay, or prevent testimony of that person in an official proceeding
Witness Tampering (Federal) – It is a defense to the charge that “the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.”
Witness Tampering (Federal) – Persuasion is “corrupt” when a person is acting with “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil” intent. The testimony sought must be “false or misleading… with the hope or expectation of some benefit to the defendant.”
Example: Corrupt persuasion includes situations where a defendant coaches or “reminds” witnesses by planting misleading facts.
From the Case: “Edlind’s statements can be seen as attempts to confuse Kwiatkowski as to what was real and what was Chujoy’s odd sense of humor. By confusing Kwiatkowski, Edlind sought to undermine his ability to testify persuasively against Chujoy in the Inca’s Secret case.
Obstruction of Justice (Federal) – It is illegal to act corruptly with the intent to influence or obstruct a pending judicial proceeding
Obstruction of Justice (Federal) – A suspect only has to act with the intent to obstruct or influence the proceeding; whether they succeed or not does not matter.
From the Case: Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Edlind corruptly persuaded Kwiatkowski, and witness tampering is an attempt to “influence” or “impede” the due administration of justice. Therefore, there was enough evidence to convict Edlind of obstruction of justice.