Jessie Lobbins v. United States, 900 F.3d 799

In 2009 Jessie Lobbins, a federal detainee, attacked fellow detainee Maurice Boyd in a county jail after Boyd relayed that another inmate, Churchwell, had boasted about murdering two people. Boyd survived.
The government charged Lobbins with witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)(A) and (C); a jury convicted him and he was sentenced (including a concurrent 30-year term for witness tampering).
Lobbins moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that misstated the mens rea element of § 1512(a)(2)(C).
The disputed instruction asked whether Boyd “might” have spoken to a federal officer absent the assault (a mere possibility standard) rather than whether there was a “reasonable likelihood” he would have done so.
The district court denied relief as harmless error, reasoning the instruction made no difference; the Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding the instruction was legally erroneous and prejudicial.

Issue	Lobbins' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction misstated mens rea for § 1512(a)(2)(C)	Instruction lowered burden to mere possibility that victim would contact federal officials	Instruction was proper or any error harmless	Instruction was erroneous: Fowler's “reasonable likelihood” standard applies to § 1512(a)(2)(C)
Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient for not objecting	Failure to object to an instruction that materially lightened the government’s burden is deficient	Counsel had strategic reasons and could not foresee Fowler applying to § 1512(a)(2)(C)	Failure to object was deficient (error was clear and counsel should have anticipated Fowler’s holding)
Whether Lobbins was prejudiced (reasonable probability of different result)	Proper instruction would require showing reasonable likelihood Boyd would have spoken to federal officials; record lacks that likelihood	Any error harmless because Boyd allegedly spoke to ATF or because murders had federal nexus	Prejudice shown: record supports that Boyd spoke to state, not federal, officials pre-assault; subsequent contact with federal officials occurred only after the assault and does not show likelihood absent it
Alternate theory under § 1512(a)(2)(A)	N/A — government suggested Lobbins intended to prevent testimony at a federal proceeding	Government argued assault could have been to prevent Boyd testifying at a federal proceeding	Rejected: government offered no evidence supporting this theory

Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011) ("prevent the communication" requires a showing of a reasonable likelihood absent the defendant's conduct)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
United States v. Coleman, 835 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for § 2255 denial is de novo)
Lucas v. O'Dea, 179 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 1999) (failure to object to erroneous instruction that lightens government's burden is typically deficient performance)
United States v. Johnson, 874 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2017) (post-assault contact with federal officials does not prove defendant intended to prevent such contact absent the assault)