Also known as: obstruct · obstructs · obstructed · obstructing · obstructions · obstruction of justice
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Conduct that impedes or hinders access to evidence or the administration of justice in legal proceedings.
Odin Obeng offered to pay a witness a sum to drop a complaint during settlement talks. Prosecutors later introduced the offer not to prove liability but to show Obeng's effort to block the criminal probe into his conduct. The court admitted the evidence under the exception allowing proof of obstruction attempts.
Ophelia O'Brien's lawyer removed key invoices from a shared server and advised a paralegal to withhold them from opposing counsel in pending litigation. The conduct violated the duty not to obstruct access to materials with evidentiary value. Sanctions followed against both lawyer and client.
Odilia Okamura urged a court clerk to ignore a subpoena and destroy related files before service. The request sought conduct that would obstruct justice. Common-law principles treated the solicitation itself as a misdemeanor even though the clerk refused.
Otto Osman took a client's stolen funds and weapon, placed them in a new safe-deposit box, and refused to disclose the location to investigators. The privilege did not shield the physical items. The attorney faced criminal exposure for obstructing law-enforcement access.
Octavia Okonkwo published statements accusing a judge of bias in an ongoing trial. Prosecutors sought contempt sanctions claiming the remarks would obstruct justice. The court held that robust criticism of officials receives First Amendment protection absent a clear and present danger of serious interference.
L. B. Sullivan is one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He has duties including supervision of the Police Department. He brought this civil libel action against the New York Times Company and four individual petitioners who were Alabama clergymen. The suit sought $500,000 in damages based on a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded Sullivan the full amount claimed against all petitioners. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment. The advertisement was signed by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South. It described widespread non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students and an unprecedented wave of terror against them. Two paragraphs formed the basis of the claim. One alleged that after students sang on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled, truckloads of police ringed the Alabama State College Campus, and the dining hall was padlocked to starve students into submission. The other stated that Southern violators had bombed Dr. King's home, assaulted him, arrested him seven times, and charged him with perjury. The text appeared over the names of 64 persons. It was endorsed by the individual petitioners among others. Sullivan contended that the references to police referred to him in his supervisory capacity. Six Montgomery residents testified that they read the statements as referring to him. However, several statements were inaccurate. The students sang the National Anthem rather than "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." The expulsions were for a different incident. The dining hall was not padlocked. Dr. King had been arrested only four times. The bombings occurred before Sullivan's tenure with police efforts to apprehend the perpetrators. The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800. It acted upon an order from a New York advertising agency. The agency provided a letter from A. Philip Randolph certifying authorization. The Times made no efforts to confirm its accuracy against its own news files. Sullivan served written demands for retraction on the petitioners pursuant to Alabama law. None of the individual petitioners responded as they had not authorized use of their names. The Times did not retract. It published a retraction only upon demand by Governor John Patterson after learning more facts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the separate petitions of the individual petitioners and the Times due to the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
View caseOrion Technologies challenged a state statute that effectively blocked interstate shipment of certain goods. The law imposed burdens that obstructed the free flow of commerce. The Court examined whether Congress possessed authority to regulate the activity under the Commerce Clause.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseYes. The rule expressly permits admission of such evidence when offered for another purpose, including proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Supporting sources
A lawyer may not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal material having potential evidentiary value, nor counsel or assist another to do so.
Supporting sources
The solicitor must act with specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime of obstructing justice. Mere general approval of criminal conduct is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege covers only communications, not physical fruits or instrumentalities of crime, especially when counsel's own actions obstruct law-enforcement access.
Supporting sources
Only when the speech poses a clear and present danger of serious interference with the administration of justice. Robust criticism of public officials receives First Amendment protection otherwise.
Supporting sources
…328 U. S. 331, 342, 343, n. 5, 345. Such repression can be justified, if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice. See also Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375. If judges are to be treated as "men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate," Craig v. Harney, supra, 331…