*1 EVANS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Cirсuit Judge. juryA convicted Amanda Workman of knowingly altering, destroying, and muti- lating a tangible object with the intent to obstruct, impede, and influence the investi- gation aof matter jurisdiction within the the Federal (FBI), Bureau of Investigation in violation § of 18 U.S.C. 1519.1 She claims that government’s against her was insufficient. For the fol- reasons, lowing the Court affirms Wort- conviction. man’s decision, We however, note that Wortman’s indictment used on our only becаuse it “and,” though word the statute uses the government’s increased the proof. burden of word “or.” The discrepancy bearing has no *2 753 finished their discus- agents After the Background I. they drove to McReynolds, sion with this conviсtion in her owes Wortman time, By this Wortman Tuttle’s home. Ryan Mc- boyfriend, to a former case work, agents so the asked was back at FBI, February in Donald, who the Tuttle was Tuttle’s residence. phone to pornography. child possessing suspected however, so the apartment, in his not in the involved became She any- to do Wortman not agents instructed that McDonald FBI discovered after and drove off. thing with the CDs com- mother’s using Wortman’s been had three illegal images, and to view puter work, came home from When Wortman mother’s at Wortman’s agents arrived day’s spoke about the and McDonald computer’s search wanting to home going to Tuttle’s resi- discussed events and hard-drive. contained to retrieve the CD that dence said that as McDonald pornography. mother’s home child to her drove
Wortman any- do supposed were not to agents that the he knew he was learned as she soon CD, want questioning “really but didn’t there, began thing with the agents and the Eventually, por- in child either.” interest leave it there McDonald’s to her about tо that she tried to diso- them and McDonald decided She told nography. life but McDonald’s and drove to that instructions stay part bey agents’ out of that statement called Re- a handwritten McDonald provided Tuttlе’s residence. said, Neville, girlfriend, and becca to Tuttle’s open to the door past in asked her discussions have had
We the FBI had He told her that apartment. about that he has had thoughts about retrievе 11- he needed to with and that activities visited him wanting to do certain yrs apartment. like 14-15 he was a CD from yr 12 olds when on several discussed We have old.... McDonald apartment, Inside Tuttle’s my recurring problems [sic] occassions and deter- question found the three CDs about may he still have feelings that or pornogra- contained child mined which one chil- any activities with wanting [sic] to the follow- trial, that At he testified phy. that would tоld me he and he has dren that he CD once he found the ing occurred any other or never touch his daughter looking for: manner. inappropriate child in my pocket, two put [CDs] I the other day, Wortman toоk Later that said, “Okay. I that one and I and took shared that she to the residence agents said, I “I don’t want This is the one.” McDonald, up McDonald showed and I hand like my it in I flexed it.” And to He admitted later. ten minutes about it, аfraid it but was going to break I por- child that had accessed agents he said, I my cut so and hand would break gave Internet nography from the wiped off. it.” And I “I don’t want pages printed computer discs agents said, “I Amаnda took it And then also He pornography. that contained child And she you how it’s done.” will show compact had lent three them that he told fingers. it in her snapped (CDs), containing pornogra- child one discs McDonald apartment, he left As Tuttle, lived a man who Stanley phy, rid of the broken get told Neville employment. place of above Wortman’s or it. not want need because he did tamper not McDonald agents The told breaking the trial, admitted At with, retrieve, destroy any of the CDs told never CD, but claimed Tuttle. had lent to that he to touch the apart- not CDs Tuttle’s struct the FBI’s investigation when she ment. also She testified broke thе CD. upset the CD because she was and wanted Title Section 1519 of the United the apartment quickly possi- leave as States Code reads as follows: *3 ble. that marijuana She said there was alters, Whoevеr knowingly destroys, apartment and that she was afraid mutilates, conceals, falsifies, up, covers if FBI agents that the discovered her or makes a entry false in any record, there, they would suspect her of being document, or tangible object with the drugs.
involved with impede, obstruct, intent to or influence investigation the proper administra- day CD, The after Wortman broke the any tion of jurisdiction matter within the agents the sрoke with Tuttle. He told any department or agency of the them that there awas broken CD in his United ... States shall be fined under home, agents and the told him to take it to title, this imprisoned not more than 20 the local sheriffs picked office. He up the years, or both. pieces of the gave Neville, them agents who did as the instructed. argues Wortman that she could not have requisite formed the intent to obstruct the later, A week Neville assisted law en- investigation FBI’s because McDonald was by forcement participating in a recorded the center of the and because phone conversation with Wortman. Dur- he took the lead role in plan their to hunt call, ing the Neville told Wortman that the down the destroy CD and it. She notes FBI had asking why been Wortman that it was McDonald’s idea to look for the broke the CD. Wortman told Neville to tell CD, that McDonald searched for the CD agents that did not why she know they once arrived apartment, at Tuttle’s Wortman broke the CD or that Wortman and that McDonald was the person first accidentally stepped on it. attempted who to break the CD. She fur- trial, After a two-day jury found explains ther that she never intended to Wortman guilty, and the district court sen- impede the FBI’s investigation and that tenced her to one yеar day and one she only broke the CD because she was prison. frustrated and wanted to leave Tuttle’s apartment. Analysis II. argument Wortman’s manifests her con- challenging “Defendants fusion about the apрly standard we when quantum of supporting evidence a jury reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. verdict face a daunting task.” United We do not reverse a if conviction a reason- Luster, (7th States v. 551, 480 F.3d jury 555 able could acquitted defendant, have a Cir.2007). assessing When sufficiency only we reverse if jury obliged was evidence, of the the Court draws all rea acquit the defendant. See United States v. sonable inferences prosecution’s Olson, in the (7th fa 655, 450 Cir.2006); F.3d 664 vor and affirms if jury rational Harris, could United v. States 271 F.3d 704 (7th have Cir.2001). found the elements of the crime true, be It case, is in this that yond a reasonable doubt. See jury United if the believed testimony, Wortman’s Hicks, (7th States 368 F.3d 804-05 it may have concluded that she did not Cir.2004). Despite standard, this difficult intend impede the FBI’s investigation. Wortman argues jury no reasonably Perhaps, maintains, as Wortman could have found that she intended tо ob- the CD because she wanted to leave because, as he the CD “afraid” break or because apartment If my hand.” said, might “cut he feared nothing to act had Maybe frustrated. boy- a picking poor judgment having to do with everything the FBI do crime, be would a the time. friend at state her emotional is not what But that charged. as guilty hand, the circumstantial other theOn a looks like in what to me government, At story. different а could tell evidence dis- prosecutorial its vast exercise of poor testimony offered trial, government I be- cretion, her with. Because charged learning after the CD broke that Wortman failеd, a matter of lieve boyfriend suspected FBI that the had the law, to demonstrate pornography child possessing illegally § 1519 to violate 18 requisite intent U.S.C. her not to told explicitly after *4 moment, she when, the heat of the evidence It also offered touch the CDs. and did from the McDonald snatched to accompanied McDonald do, I would afraid to he was too what knowing that he want- apartment her conviction. reverse Fi- incriminating evidence. destroy toed a recorded played government nally, the short of estab- falls I think evidence Ne- asked which conversation “willfully to intended lishing Wortman attempt to an to FBI to lie ville in- a federal impede or destroy evidence had done.2 what Wortman conceal did, under and what she vestigation” by it, case. suggests a woman in this she did of events the circumstances This course pris- Wortman, to boyfriend go out of to McDonald, her decided keeping not on fixed destroying evidence. the CDs to look for on, apartment if it meant even her act not be fol- he would characterizes roads so Though Wortman took back Wortman, mo- McDonald, of the knocked “in the heat not done something lowed. did, could, call to jury phone Josh’s ment,” door to use a reasonable on Josh’s apart- was the evidence him in to Tuttle’s Consequently, Becky to come let disagree. Wortman, McDonald, searched conviction. not support to ment. sufficient looking for apartmеnt through Tuttle’s III. Conclusion Wortman, attempted McDonald, not CDs. on the CDs of the reasons, the contents the Court to review For these AffiRms out figure to in order and DVD computer conviction. Wortman’s Mc- destroy. to wаnted which CD he dissenting. EVANS, Judge, Circuit initial at- Wortman, Donald, made not McDonald, was It to break the CD. tempt mis- made several Amanda Wortman “will- attempting to Wortman, who was not far, getting was takes, by biggest, but her a federal imрede destroy fully It seems Ryan McDonald. up with mixed Wortman, the evi- as I see investigation.” women that most suspect reasonable related dence, form intent did not possess guys clear who to steer want Hеr of McDonald. ... “thoughts harbored porn and kiddie moment heat of conduct was in things do certain wanting to about intent specific to McDonald’s related top And to But Wortman. not children.” used McDonald destroy the CD. find He was a off, wimp. was McDonald at- (7th Cir.2000) (holding defendant’s that a con- protestations to the Despite Wortman’s circumstantial crime is tempt to conceal evidence of was also trary, this сonversation commit- at the time intent evidence of her See the CD. at time her intent act). ted 350-51 Ryan, 213 F.3d v. States United Wortman, in much the same way as he hammer, have
might used a to accomplish goal. intent,
his Wortman’s it seems out frustration, to simply do something wimpy boyfriend too afraid to do
himself because he didn’t want get hurt. REYNOLDS,
Richard Plaintiff-
Appellant,
Dawn Christopher JAMISON and
Darr, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-2170.
United States Appeals, Court of
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Nov. 2006.
Decided June