United States v. Edwards
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16181
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eni "Enkhchimeg" Edwards, a naturalized U.S. citizen and CBP officer, was charged with two counts of witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3)) for recorded January 2013 calls advising Michael Rosel about how to speak to investigators, and two counts of making false statements on a 2014 SF-86 and supplemental form (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
- The witness-tampering counts stemmed from calls in which Edwards urged Rosel to describe his marriage to Tsansanchimeg ("Tsasa") as a normal relationship, while Rosel later testified the marriage had been arranged to obtain immigration benefits.
- The false-statement counts alleged Edwards lied on security questionnaires by denying she had provided financial support to a foreign national and denied helping anyone enter or stay in the U.S.; evidence included a posted bond, temporary housing, joint bank activity, and transfers between Edwards and Tsasa.
- At trial a jury convicted Edwards on all four counts; the district judge imposed two years’ probation and a $2,000 fine but expressed skepticism about the strength and appropriateness of the prosecution.
- On appeal Edwards argued (1) the jury instructions for § 1512(b)(3) omitted the required "corruptly" element, (2) § 1512(b)(3) is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) the evidence was insufficient on all counts.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the § 1001 convictions, held § 1512(b)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied here, vacated the § 1512 convictions because the jury instructions omitted the required "corruptly" mens rea, and remanded Counts I–II for possible retrial and all counts for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edwards) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions for § 1512(b)(3) | Trial instructions omitted/failed to define "corruptly," so jury could convict without finding consciousness of wrongdoing | Pattern/standard language unnecessary; instruction captured intent to interfere and knowledge | Reversed convictions on Counts I–II — omission of "corruptly" was constitutional error not harmless; remand for retrial possible |
| Vagueness of "corruptly" in § 1512(b)(3) | Term is ambiguous; statute fails to give fair notice | "Corruptly" has settled meaning as requiring consciousness of wrongdoing and covers persuading a witness to lie | Rejected — statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; persuading a witness to lie falls within § 1512(b)(3) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for witness tampering | Evidence insufficient to prove corrupt persuasion and intent to hinder federal investigation | Recorded calls plus Rosel’s testimony provided a rational basis to find Edwards sought to have Rosel misstate facts to investigators | Sufficient evidence existed, but conviction vacated for instructional error; retrial possible with proper instructions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false statements (§ 1001) | Statements on SF-86 were truthful or not knowingly false | Documentary and testimonial evidence (bond, housing, bank transfers, testimony) showed willful, material falsehoods | Affirmed — convictions on Counts III and IV upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) ("corruptly" requires consciousness of wrongdoing; jury must be instructed to that effect)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an essential element in jury instruction is constitutional error requiring harmless-error analysis)
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) (harmless-error standard; conviction must be vacated unless error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Doss, 630 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (surveying circuit approaches to "corruptly" and confirming that persuading a witness to lie violates § 1512)
- United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2007) (pattern instruction equating "corruptly" with "wrongfully" upheld in § 1512 context)