United States v. Friske
640 F.3d 1288
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Friske was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2) for attempting to obstruct a forfeiture proceeding involving Erickson’s property.
- Erickson, indicted on conspiracy and drug charges, arranged a Florida property for a “repair” where cash was allegedly buried.
- On Oct. 13, 2008, Erickson telephoned Friske and described items under a pool deck; agents later found $375,000 in pipes buried at the Florida property.
- Agents executed a warrant after Friske did not arrive as planned; the ground was smoothed prior to their departure.
- On Oct. 16, Friske was found at the property with gloves, dirt, and retrieved items; he and Erickson exchanged calls and Friske claimed to be securing items for a friend.
- The district court denied a judgment of acquittal; the defense moved for acquittal on sufficiency grounds, challenged by Friske.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of the forfeiture proceeding is required | Friske | Friske | Nexus knowledge required; government failed to prove Friske knew |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of knowledge or foreknowledge of the proceeding | Government evidence supports knowledge | No evidence Friske knew of the proceeding | Insufficient evidence of knowledge; conviction vacated |
| Whether circumstantial evidence could sustain knowledge-based intent | Circumstantial inference suffices | Speculation not enough | Speculation not enough; cannot sustain conviction |
| Whether the government needed to prove a pending or foreseeable proceeding | Proceeding need not be pending | Must be foreseeably affected by actions | Aguilar nexus requires knowledge or foresight of proceeding |
| Remedy on sufficiency failure | Maintain conviction | Award acquittal | Conviction vacated; remanded for judgment of acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) (nexus requirement; knowledge of pending/foreseeable proceeding)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) (extended nexus concept to §1512(b)(2) and related statutes)
- United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard; nexus discussion context)
- United States v. Phillips, 583 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2009) (nexus requirement applied to §1512(c)(2))
- United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (nexus requirement for obstruction statutes)
- United States v. Carson, 560 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2009) (assumes nexus applicability to §1512(c)(2))
- United States v. Frankhauser, 80 F.3d 641 (1st Cir. 1996) (foreseeability of official proceeding as a limiting factor)
- United States v. Mendez, 528 F.3d 811 (11th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence must support beyond speculation)