Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
John Murtha — Part 1
Page 91
91 / 92
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
that Murtha stole the plan from Fenton so he could bring it to fruition and take the credit for
himself. Even under Fenton’s distorted view of reality, there was no “official” action Murtha
could take or not take that would satisfy Fenton’s desires. At most, Congressman Murtha could
have given Fenton the credit Fenton thought he deserved, but that is not an official duty.
Accordingly, even if Fenton had intended to impede, intimidate or interfere with Murtha, that
intent had absolutely no nexus with any of the Congressman’s official duties.
The government argues that there is no nexus requirement; rather, it contends that the
defendant need only intend to impede, intimidate or interfere with the Congressman “during the
time that” he is performing official duties. That is simply not what the statute provides.
Section 115(a)(1)(B) is quite clear that the defendant’s intent must be “to impede, intimidate or
interfere with such official. . . while engaged in the performance of official duties. . . .”
(Emphasis added.) See United States v. Streich, 759 F.2d 579, 584 (7th Cir. 1985) (Whether an
official is engaged in performance of official duties “turns on whether the federal officer is
acting within the scope of what he is employed to do or is engaging in a personal frolic of his
own.”). Evidently, the government believes this condition is satisfied during the entire time
that Congress is in session, or perhaps as long as the member holds office. This is implausible,
leading as it does to absurd possibilities, for example, that a person could be convicted under
§ 115(a)(1)CB) for threatening a Member of Congress in response to an insult the Member made
to that person’s spouse during cocktail party conversation. Significantly, the government cites
no useful authority for this novel proposition. The closest it comes is the case of United States
vy. Berki, 936 F.2d 529 (11th Cir. 1991), but that case is inapposite. There, the defendant clearly
threatened a federal judge on account of her performance of official judicial duties. Id. at 531.
14
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic