Fowler v. United States
131 S. Ct. 2045
SCOTUS2011Background
- Fowler murdered Officer Horner to prevent Horner from communicating information about Fowler’s criminal activities; the information concerned possible federal crimes.
- Fowler was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) for killing with intent to prevent a communication to law enforcement about a federal offense.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that preventing a “possible or potential” communication to federal authorities satisfied § 1512(a)(1)(C).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari due to circuit-split on what the Government must prove beyond the broad intent.
- The Court held the Government must show a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer, when the defendant had no specific federal officer in mind.
- The Court remanded for resolution of application and preservation issues in light of this standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard to prove intent when no specific officer is in mind | Fowler: broad intent suffices | Scalia: require beyond reasonable doubt that hypothetical federal communication would occur | Reasonable likelihood standard required |
| Meaning of 'prevent' in absence of specific recipient | Government should prove any possible federal link | Statute should be read narrowly to require a federal recipient | Gov. must show reasonable likelihood of a federal communication (not mere possibility) |
| Effect of §1512(g)(2) on mens rea vs actus reus | Federal officer status unnecessary for mens rea | Federal status may be required element of actus reus | Federal officer status is not required for mens rea; the recipient’s federal character matters for the actus reus as to the federal recipient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 498 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2007) (federal nexus exists if information relates to federal offense)
- United States v. Lopez, 372 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004) (requires federal crime plus plausible federal recipient)
- United States v. Bell, 113 F.3d 1345 (3d Cir. 1997) (discussion of federal nexus in §1512)
- United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 1999) (federal nexus considerations in §1512)
- United States v. Wright, 536 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2008) (approaches to the federal officer requirement in §1512)
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) (federal-state balance; standard for federalization)