*1
1571
recognize underlying
to
authorization
Board
its members
which the
the
and
grant
named official acts is
illegal”
to
them the other
asserted to be
their tenure and
law,
the
federal
the
of
contracts with DCC and
“violation
federal
benefits their
by
ongoing,”
official
provid
Board Education
state
is
County
DeKalb
of
[the]
sought
the relief
will end the violation.
ed.
Attain,
265,
Papasan v.
478
106
U.S.
S.Ct.
appellees moved the court
dismiss
The
2940,
2932,
(1986).
unconstitutional because such against the is not considered as a suit suit by the eleventh amend-
state barred court, however,
ment. The viewed only
Young applying as where the doctrine enjoin
plaintiff seeks to the enforcement statute, unconstitutional state and con-
an appellants that since were not seek-
cluded relief, ing inapplica- America, such doctrine UNITED STATES of ble. We reverse. Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
II. FIELDS, Boyd Patrick Appellants concede that their claims Defendant-Appellant. by are elev
against the Board barred No. 87-3240. amendment, Georgia enth State having sovereign immunity Appeals, Court waived its United States question must premises. only we Eleventh Circuit. decide, therefore, is whether 11, March application Young. in its court erred We conclude that did. view, the
Contrary to the district court’s
Young limited cases doctrine enjoin plaintiff a state seeks enforcing an unconstitutional
official from Young applies
state
“where
statute.
Louisiana,
provides
against
their own state. Hans
"[t]he
4. amendment
eleventh
504,
(1890).
effect conviction in probationary status an uncon- agreed state Wilhite nected criminal case. HATCHETT, VANCE and Before to do so. Fields convinced Wilhite to then *, Judges, and O’KELLEY Circuit father, offices go to the of Fields’s law- Judge. District knowingly give a false yer, and to sworn in denied which Wilhite HATCHETT, Judge. Circuit participated Fields had in the sale presents question of appeal This how trial, shotgun. speci- At Wilhite sawed-off may go obtaining false state- far one gave in seven false he re- fied answers anticipation judicial proceed- of a ments sponse questions put to him Fields’s held to have “en- ing may one before exchange One at trial illustra- father. justice under 18 U.S. deavored” to obstruct tive, reading begins with Wilhite’s of a Finding our circuit C. § put question him Fields’s father: require the false statements does not (reading from sworn state- [WILHITE judicial proceeding or be deliv- be used Fields, ment)]: Boyd ‘Did Patrick court, officer of we affirm ered to an anything him about or you see know convictions. possession participate either the grand jury returned an indict- A federal shotgun]?’ alteration [the Boyd charging appellant, Patrick ment you answer did What [PROSECUTOR]: Fields, Lee Warren Wilhite with feder- give? The indictment al firearms violations. ‘No, (reading)]: sir.’ [WILHITE with one count charged Fields and Wilhite that true? Was [PROSECUTOR]: possession causing the possessing No, ma’am. [WILHITE]: 5861(d), shotgun (26 U.S.C. a sawed-off §§ 2) time made the false 5871,18 of trans- Near the Wilhite one count U.S.C. § Fields’s father causing transfer of a sworn statement ferring and * by designation. O’Kelley, U.S. District Honorable William C. Georgia, Judge District of sit- for the Northern prosecutor or other officer lawyers for of the court? government notified citing government, the informant who The Fields and Wilhite that an- shotgun had been the sawed-off purchased citing swers the affirmative. wearing Once Fields’s recording device. Brand attempting Sil- distinguish verman, lawyer learned of the informant’s record- negative. answers ing, provided he *3 To determine what evidence is relevant false sworn statement. copy of Wilhite’s inquiry, identify to this we must first lawyer Wilhite that advised Wilhite’s statutory meaning of the word “endeavor.” by him could be used 1984, In court defined this “endeavor” as advising prosecutor. After Fields and 1503, in 18 stating used “all the U.S.C. § Attorney’s Office of the States the United government has to establish is that statement, negotiation, and after some Wil- reasonably defendant should foreseen cooperate lawyer fully him to hite’s advised probable consequence natural and investigation re- a law enforcement of his success scheme would [ob- garding taking of the statement. Pur- justice].” struct due administration of cooperation, this law enforcement suant to Silverman, United States v. 745 F.2d telephone call from Wil- agents monitored a (11th Cir.1984) (citations omitted). 1393 Fields during Fields admitted hite to apparently The district court relied knowing the statement was Silverman definition concluding jury charged Fields with vio grand The Fields obstruct justice. endeavored to (1986). lating 18 U.S.C. 1503 That stat § district court said: “corruptly one en punishes who ... ute finds Fields Court did endeavor obstruct, influence, impede, or deavors ** justice finds that obstruct further justice____” due administration of Fields should have foreseen that the due appeal is primary issue on whether administration of would have supports the district sufficient evidence plan using if his for been obstructed Fields conclusion that endeavored successful, statement was false and that the obstruction the adminis- natural tration of DISCUSSION probable consequence, even if the state- primary issue this To resolve successfully to aid ment was not used holdings in United interpret we must our [Emphasis Fields’ defense. added.] Silverman, (11th v. F.2d 1386 745 States terms, simplest Fields’s Reduced to its Cir.1984) and 775 distinguish- Silverman contention is that is Cir.1985). (11th Specifically, 1460 F.2d In criminal defense able. is: does one “endeavor obstruct issue attorney his client that if the client told by obtaining giving or justice” false $25,000, paid attorney money it be with the intent that used dangerous “powerful to pay used be proceeding the statement is judicial when client people” could assure that if the proceeding who never used a sentence pleaded guilty, be he would receive given or caused to never him, being by on of his reads sented to or account § full text of U.S.C. 1503 as fol- **The 18 injures any juror, having or lows: or been such commissioner, officer, force, or other commit- corruptly, threats or or such Whoever or communication, any threatening property person or on magistrate letter in his or intimidate, influence, impede or endeavors performance his official account of the petit any grand juror, force, or or officer in or of duties, or corruptly or or threats or States, any or court of the United officer who communication, by any threatening or letter serving any may other be at examination or obstructs, influences, impedes, or endeav- or any proceeding States before United commis- obstruct, influence, impede, due or ors to committing magistrate, in the or other sioner justice, be fined shall administration of discharge duty, injures any or such of his $5,000 imprisoned not more more than or juror person property grand petit or in his years, than or both. five or indictment as- on account of verdict fact, argues, trapment defense. Fields probation imprisonment. rather than entrapment acquit- won him defense an Silverman, at 1390-91. charges. probabili- tal on firearms such argues that when ty his act result an obstruc- that the client tells his client as Silverman much than the tion of lower probation upon payment of a will receive probability demonstrated Silverman. $25,000 bribe, receive thirteen but will important it is Fields also made, years imprisonment payment if no is he Wilhite’s false sworn lawyer that the then it foreseeable to the is to be to the Assistant delivered his probable consequence of natural and (AUSA) Attorney States United justice. The be to statements will obstruct produced in court. client, argues, likely plead attempt distinguish reject We perjury during guilty then to commit facts case. based on the of this Silverman Rule Criminal Procedure Federal probability of Although the *4 being inquiry plea whether the was into slightly in this than in may be less case any promises apart made absence in the of Silverman, ruling the is not plea agree- in the those contained wrong clearly as a matter of law or errone- law- ment. if the client discloses his Even ous. and a new yer’s obtains behavior Brand, that we As to Fields contends system may the client’s faith the obtains, attempts party when a or held that prevent so as to the client from be shaken obtain, to false statements from witnesses judgment about whether making a sensible tending exculpate, to but does not plead guilty. F.2d at to statements to be delivered to those According “endeavor” 1394-95. to court, prosecutor produced or then the of effect means that the obstruction non-delivery non-production those of foreseeable; merely must more than be strong that statements constitutes evidence be the requires also that the obstruction the accused not endeavor to obstruct consequence a de- probable natural and of justice. fendant’s act. pickup sold a In the defendant case, argues, Silverman a The odometer on the truck to customer. clearly this standard because whatever met 40,000 pickup had been rolled-back took course of action Silverman’s client expressly stated The bill of sale miles. inevitably in an obstruction of result mileage guaran- was the odometer not that Although proof of an inevitable justice. to the An odometer statement mailed teed. required, of is not obstruction in the purchaser had been checked opinion pains to demon- takes Silverman space provided form to indicate the on the probability of which must strate the level mileage on the vehicle was accurate. prove to that a be demonstrated order charged fraud in defendant was with mail an endeavor to ob- act constitutes roll-back. connection with the odometer struct pur- defendant told the AUSA that although Fields further rolled knew the odometer had been chaser been characterized and Wilhite have The AUSA informed the defendant back. friends, far influ- as Fields was in a less affidavit if the defendant obtained an than in the position ential effect, charges would be to then the example, case. it is not For Silverman The defendant reduced or dismissed. gone had Wilhite to trial on certain that presented purchaser to a statement he would have continued firearms violation purchaser knew which said gone Fields. Had Wilhite to exculpate pur- to back. The had been rolled odometer par- grounds trial told the truth about Fields’s sign it on the refused to chaser shotgun, pre- it is ticipation in the sale of the Based their was not true. on that it attempted purchas- to that Fields not clear sentation of statement en- er, prior were convicted impeach Wilhite sworn the defendants to with justice in violation deavoring en- because Fields had a valid Furthermore, ing it to the obvi- reversed. This court 18 U.S.C. § purpose to convic- ous of the statement was either allowing the The court stated impeach changed story if he his Wilhite in a flood would result tions to stand trial, inculpate if investigators decided Fields at or lawyers prosecutions of testify, state- Wilhite did offer the false statements happened to obtain who prior ment as statement made oath submitted who never from witnesses but testify at a declarant not available to prosecutor or statements those trial. stated: court. Brand we this case we consider At the outset analysis relies majority the Brand if the convictions dangerous precedent upon the non-existence of a false state- practice for upheld. It is common are ment, and not the fact that a false attorneys, investigators, insurance ad- pros- statement was never submitted agents, justers, enforcement Indeed, orga- or to the court. ecutor federal, attempt state and both opinion sug- strongly nization of the Brand signed statements of witnesses obtain significance placed on the gests that the we they are to and civil cases. If criminal of the statement to the non-submission are), (as they frequently be confronted way prosecutor merely persons claiming charges of impossibility emphasizing of ob- false, resulting in an thus structing justice with a false statement charge even no false exists. In this when though statement was never sub- exist, and its false statement did court, prosecutor to a mitted the circum- existence combination with cases be filed feder- new wave of will its it far more *5 stances of existence made al authorities. or state likely been statement would have
Brand, at We reversed the 775 F.2d produced in court and that would be argues in Brand convictions. Fields in We obstructed in this case than Brand. part in because the defendants we reversed need not be hold that a false statement of a false did not cause the submission actually or delivered to a used prosecutor or to court. statement ele- satisfy “endeavor” court officer in this case we that likewise obstruction of statute. ment not Fields did must reverse because contrary. not hold to the Brand does to be submitted to Wilhite’s false statement addition, note, existence We Although or to the court. prosecutor materially altered of the false statement eventually sworn statement Wilhite’s false Its government’s of Wilhite. treatment hands, prosecutor’s way found its into the grand of the frustrated the intent existence lawyer, it prosecutor. jury and the prosecutor. submitted the statement regarding considered the issues We have proba- this a factor The Brand case makes conduct, outrageous exclusion testimo- endeavor to tive of absence of intercepted conversations ny, and use of obstruct According- find them be meritless. above-quoted language supports af- judgment are ly, the conviction and however, argument. Significantly, firmed. analysis no whatso- the Brand case makes AFFIRMED significance of the defendant’s ever of failure to submit false statement to VANCE, Judge, dissenting: Circuit Instead, prosecutor or Brand court. correctly majority places analysis most its on the fact that The decision of obtained, one 'endeavor issue to be “does no false statement was ever states the obtaining giving justice’ by even if a had been ob- to obstruct false statement it be tained, the intent that it was not clear that the defendant false statement when the judicial proceeding to be used known the statement pro- is never used In this Fields obtained the oath, given caused to be statement, ceeding in re- and never obtained of the officer sponse prosecutor or other questioning know- I one does court?” Because believe by simply ob-
endeavor
taining never submit- a false statement but prosecutor to the or the the statement
court, I dissent. simply solicited and obtained a exculpatory
false from Wilhite. Fields’ attor-
The statement was made to presented prose- to the
ney, but was never judicial proceeding.
cutor nor used
application of
its
(11th Cir.1985),
majority
improperly fact that in this focuses on the a false statement was obtained. The case court, however, wary
Brand of estab-
lishing precedent allowing obstruction of
justice charges attorneys and whenever investigators
other obtain a false statement regular in the course of a
from witness
investigation. Congress not manifest- has 1503 to all
ed an intent to extend section counsel obtains a false
instances where from a witness. Absent clear intent,
congressional section 1503 must be
strictly construed.
I reverse the conviction.
STATE ESTABLISHMENT FOR AGRI TRADING, CULTURAL PRODUCT
Plaintiff-Appellant, WESERMUNDE, engines, Her tack
M/V le, etc.; apparel, furnishings, in rem: Naviera, S.A.; Marquis Compania Kingdom Steamship As
United Mutual (Bermuda) surance Limit Association ed; Brothers, Ltd.; In Pateras Pateras vestments, S.A.; Compa and Kittiwake Naviera, S.A., personam, nia Defend
ants-Appellees.
No. 87-3375. Appeals,
United States Court of
Eleventh Circuit.
March