United States v. Oscar Rash
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19360
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2007 police found Oscar Rash, a felon, take and drop a handgun after responding to a report; he admitted possession but told police the gun belonged to his girlfriend, Monica, and he was returning it.
- At trial Rash repeated that he did not purchase the gun; defense argued he merely accompanied Monica.
- Government introduced gun-store videotape showing Rash twice accompanied Monica to buy the gun; Rash denied assisting in the purchase.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement based on Rash’s allegedly false trial testimony minimizing his role in the purchase.
- Rash argued on appeal (at resentencing) that the testimony was immaterial because he had conceded possession; the court concluded the false testimony risked jury nullification and was therefore material, so the enhancement was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 was proper where defendant admitted possession but lied about his role in purchasing the gun | Rash: his false testimony about buying the gun was immaterial because he already admitted unlawful possession | Government: the lie was material because it could have influenced the jury to nullify or affected sentencing | The court upheld the enhancement: the lie was material due to the risk of jury nullification; not material to sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arambula, 238 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2001) (elements of perjury-based obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Senn, 129 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 1997) (false, immaterial testimony does not support enhancement)
- United States v. Stenson, 741 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2014) (enhancement upheld where false testimony went to possession issue)
- United States v. Sorich, 709 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2013) (jury nullification power and its unreviewable nature)
- United States v. Laguna, 693 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2012) (nullification risk can make testimony material)
- United States v. Gage, 183 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 1999) (need for explicit finding of intent to obstruct when applying enhancement)
- United States v. Sapoznik, 161 F.3d 1117 (7th Cir. 1998) (materiality includes potential to affect sentencing)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Supreme Court decision affecting Armed Career Criminal Act mandatory minimums)