United States v. Jon Burge
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6418
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Burge, a former Chicago Police Commander, led an interrogation regime involving torture tactics to extract confessions.
- Civil lawsuits accused CPD of a policy of torture; Hobley sued Burge and others seeking discovery related to that policy.
- Burge answered two sets of interrogatories about awareness of coercive techniques, denying involvement.
- In 2008 the government indicted Burge for obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and for perjury under § 1621(1) based on those responses.
- A jury convicted Burge on all counts in 2010; the district court sentenced him to 54 months; the district court and appellate court rejected his challenges and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1512(c)(2) requires obstruction before a judge or court | Burge argues conduct must occur before a judge/court | Burge contends statute requires in-court occurrence | No; obstruction can occur pre-proceeding |
| Civil suit merits relevant to criminal liability | Hobley’s civil case affects Burge’s liability | Civil allegations are distinct from criminal intent | Merits of Hobley’s civil suit irrelevant to Burge’s criminal liability |
| Materiality of false interrogatory responses for perjury | Responses were material to Hobley case | Materiality not shown or required to be the actual outcome | False statements were material; they could influence the civil proceeding’s outcome |
| Constructive amendment vs. variance of indictment | Instruction expanded materiality beyond indictment | Variance, not constructive amendment; elements unchanged | Variance was harmless; no constructive amendment; charged elements satisfied |
| Admission of hearsay at trial | Proffered testimony falls under Rule 807 catch-all | Hearsay not sufficiently reliable under Rule 807 | No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper and harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1979) (perjury statute interpretation; statements before formal contexts)
- United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1995) (Omnibus obstruction language in §1503 analogue)
- Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1972) (statutory interpretation; omnibus clause purposes)
- United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2007) (pretrial misconduct may affect pending or foreseeable proceeding)
- United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (Omnibus obstruction language in §1503 analogue)
- Howard v. United States, 560 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1977) (materiality defined by likelihood to influence decisionmaking)
- United States v. Wesson, 478 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1973) (materiality doctrine for perjury)
- United States v. Ratliff-White, 493 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2007) (variance vs. constructive amendment)
- United States v. Kuna, 760 F.2d 813 (7th Cir. 1985) (variance analysis in indictment vs jury instructions)
- United States v. Galbraith, 200 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2000) (lie may influence pretrial outcome)
- United States v. Perez, 575 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2009) (Use of force report obstruction of BOP investigation)
- United States v. Binette, 828 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D. Mass. 2011) (supplemental authority cited post-briefing)