Talk:Obstruction of justice in the United States

American Law & British Law

The Perverting the course of justice article says that the offence applies in British law. this article is written from a US perspective. Is it therefore safe to assume that this article is particular to the United States? Is 'obstruction of justice' the American equivalent of the British offence of 'perverting the cource of justice'? And if so, shouldn't the article state that the offence applies in United States jurisdictions, and have a 'see also' perverting the course of justice? Also, where the article refers to a common law state, is this a refernce to a state in the United States, or a nation state? -- Adz 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Scooter Libby Details...

Search the web for "Mike Nifong rogue prosecutor" for current examples of possible abuse of power which can be construed as obstruction of justice and and possible criminal prosecution

Go to www.adbmich.org and search "bribe" for specific examples of obstruction of justice by judicial tyranny(Wikiywry1947 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)).

There needs to be a more detailed description of the charges and circumstances surrounding Scooter Libby's conviction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordinho (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Conrad Black - Not Typical Obstruction?

From the statements in this article, it seems that the example of Conrad Black isn't a typical case of obstruction of justice, as the evidence wasn't altered or destroyed, simply "borrowed" and returned. I'm thinking this should be mentioned, but I'm not sure how to phrase it without seeming POV. Malcolmst 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is confusing messy

In the U.S. alone there are 51+ criminal law jurisdictions. Some states have no offense called "obstruction of justice." Most people who talk of "Obstruction of Justice" are talking about U.S. Federal prosecutions. However there actually is no single federal crime by that name. Title 18, Chapter 73 of the United States Code is entitled "Obstruction of Justice" and the term is routinely applied to the offenses thereunder which are actually 19 or so separately sectioned crimes (including 18 USC § 1507 called "Picketing or parading") none of which is named "obstruction of justice." http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html These offenses deal mostly with bribing or threatening jurors, witnesses or investigators or with interference with subpoenas, court orders, and falsification of certain records. Though §§ 1503 and 1505 have some sweeping language, most sections are much more particular than one might suppose. Overall, the federal statute has little similarity with the claims strewn by this article. Of course, this federal statute is not necessarily the end-all be-all of "Obstruction of Justice"--there are tons of other laws out there. That's my other point. This article makes no effort to specifically describe what actual crimes it says are "Obstruction of Justice." It certainly doesn't well describe the federal law cited above, nor the laws of the State of New York, for example. It fails to explain what jurisdictions, if any, actually have an offense by that name or offenses that acre commonly referred to by that name. It is just a collection of misplaced notions written by some clueless people.

This sentence from the article makes no sense as is. "However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent used to allow any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.252.54 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there aren't words of generic or semi-generic legal meaning, but this article doesn't even try to say what the actual scope of the term is or what senses it might be used in.

As for the wrongheadedness of citing to U.S. v. Binion--which deals with the USSG only, please go look at my diatribe on that sad article's talk page. Criticality (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Check

This looks like it belongs out.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Severe mistake:

Under victimless crimes you have issues that have a victim in relation and fall under the heading of forms of Tort. Adultery is one of these, it is not victimless, being it a form of contractual fraud.

Suicide and masterbation on the other hand are not crimes at all, but could fall under loitering, trashing (like throwing sperm around), or public/private nuissance. The allegation of a crime is indirect, not direct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.93.21 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017

Donald Trump has not been convicted of Obstruction of justice Wes Lennon (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wes Lennon: Trump is not (currently) mentioned in the article. No change is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

does anyone have plans to add loretta or hillary?107.77.210.76 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@107.77.210.76: If you can find a reliable source saying they've been investigated for the crime or convicted of it, you can add it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017

Notable Examples (of Obstruction of Justice) Bullet 6 REMOVE 'Donald Trump' as no source is possible, no justification, no truth in listing the name there 2001:56A:76D7:6400:31DC:C355:CD13:3CE4 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump isn't mentioned in the article at all. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey's testimony clears President Trump of "collusion" and "obstruction of justice" and should therefore be removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.145.183 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no, even if Trump were mentioned in this article. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Remove Donald Trump as a notable example of obstruction of justice. He is not under investigation, has not been charged with this or any other crime nor been convicted of any crime. This inclusion of his name is just a political attempt at attacking him and smearing his name while at the same time devaluing this site. Patchesbennett (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

"Donald Trump" is not currently a notable example of obstruction of justice and there are no sources cited or information provided to substantiate this conjecture. "Donald Trump" should be removed from this article and should never have been added by an anonymous House staffer in the first place. 173.19.226.104 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump...

Guys, this is notable examples of Obstruction of Justice, not notable examples of people being investigated for obstruction of justice. Leave Trump out of the article until he is found guilty or at very least it becomes CLEAR he is being investigated seriously and not just tangentially. I agree with the IPs. It's like 'one of these is not like the others.' ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"not notable examples of people being investigated for obstruction of justice". From the section: "Richard Nixon was being investigated for obstruction of justice" (nowhere does it mention that Nixon was convicted - and indeed the Richard Nixon article doesn't say that he was ever convicted of it). The section title is "Notable examples" not "Notable convictions". It seems the Donald Trump case is a notable case. It's been widely covered in reliable sources. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the consensus here? Does he belong in this article, or not?

In my opinion he does. The case has been reported by reliable sources. It's a very important case. And the subject himself has acknowledged that he's under investigation. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow politics much, so I don't know exactly what has been reported in the news, but based on the reference that is used to support the contested text, I don't think it would be appropriate at all to include this. The cited article appears to be speculation based on anonymous sources. That is insufficient, in my opinion, and it would constitute a WP:BLP violation to include it in this article at the very least unless/until there is an official statement from an investigator saying that Trump is being investigated for the crime of obstruction of justice. Even then, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to include it unless there is something more than the fact that they are just looking into it. Best would be to wait until specific charges of wrongdoing are made by investigators. There is also a clear distinction between Trump and Nixon. Nixon was not merely investigated, he was disbarred for obstruction of justice. Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand the argument that in 2017 it was unclear whether Trump deserved a mention here. But in light of Volume 2 of the Mueller Report, it seems pretty clear to belong now as a notable investigation, so I added a section on Trump about a week ago. An unregistered user removed it as incorrect (commenting "Donald Trump never was investigated on obstruction of justice" which seems wrong). Another user removed references to Trumps' pardons for obstruction of justice as irrelevant (I also disagree with this since the resolution of the cases is important). Thoughts on reverting these edits? Milhouse10000 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added information on the pardons of Libby and Black (and Nixon who was pre-emptively pardoned). Will re-add information on Trump unless there is any objection. Milhouse10000 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It should definitely be included. Even if Trump somehow gets completely exonerated, it's probably the most widely-discussed obstruction investigation in history (other than maybe Watergate) and highly relevant to the article. Also agree that the pardons should be included simply as a BLP matter, since the pardoned people are legally not guilty of obstruction anymore. Toohool (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-added! Milhouse10000 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Orange Man Bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8800:6F00:80D5:9561:7CFF:2994 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Banner should be removed

The article is forthright about being a concept most fleshed out in US Jurisdictions. I think it unnecessary to have a banner which states that it may unduly represent US law. That is covered in the topic sentence. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Merge proposal. Boud (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Maybe Closed Limelike Curves could give some arguments for and against (without either obstructing this proposal or perverting its course ;)). There is obviously a strong overlap in the concepts. Boud (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The proposal is to merge obstruction of justice with perverting the course of justice (with obstruction of justice as the primary name). Arguments for or against a merger include:

• for: at least for ordinary intuition, it appears that the two concepts are essentially the same (even though the lead of obstruction of justice currently has the un-sourced statement Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice, i.e. it asserts that obstruction of justice is a more specific subset of perverting the course of justice);
• for (circumstantial evidence): there are currently 13 other national language versions of obstruction (+ simple English); 5 other national language versions of peverting; and only 1 language of these (Arabic) is in common apart from English; this suggests that editors of other language Wikipedias didn't know which one to choose and (mostly) arbitrarily chose one and ignored the other; this arbitrariness risks weakening synergy between the different language Wikipedias;
• for: (overlaps with previous point): this is an encyclopedia about the world that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia about the English-speaking world; unless we have a properly sourced explanation of how obstruction and perverting are substantially different, rather than differing in the details of implementation in different jurisdictions, we make the task for adding material about non-English speaking countries difficult - pl:Poplecznictwo is (currently) uniquely about the concept in Polish law (Article 239 Para 1 of the Polish Criminal Code); fr:Entrave à l'exercice de la justice covers the concept in French law better than in other countries (Articles 434-7-1 to 434-23-1 of the French Criminal Code); in what way are either of these not about perverting the course of justice? how would someone choose which of the two articles to add the PL and FR legal definitions and notable incidents to in the English Wikipedia?
• against: we don't seem to have any high quality legal sources that state that the two should be considered the same, so a merge could be seen as original research;
• against: the separation between countries is natural, and reduces the time scale in the future when a WP:SPLIT could be needed as the content of the two articles expands.

Boud (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. On the face of it, the two topics are not the same thing. We certainly should not be merging the single offence, which originated from English common law (and from nowhere else), and which criminalizes a wider range of conduct (perverting the course of justice) into the set of statutory offences (principally under chapter 73 of 18 USC) which criminalize a narrower range of conduct (obstruction of justice) just to Americanize the topic. In any event, obstruction of justice in the US is an independently notable national law. As a general rule, the more important laws of individual large countries usually satisfy GNG independently, and we will normally have an article for each country. Obstruction of justice is appropriate as an article on the US laws which are independently notable, because they satisfy independently GNG, see eg [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and the numerous other sources on the US law of obstruction of justice. That article could be moved to Obstruction of justice in the United States (or something like that) to clarify what it is really about, and I think that might be the best approach. I do not support adding offences from Roman law countries like Poland and France, into an article about a common law offence, unless they really can be proved with reliable sources to be the same offence (which seems unlikely because they are from countries that do not have common law, and are therefore unlikely to have independently evolved an identical offence to common law countries). James500 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  @James500: Just to clarify (I'm not suggesting that you're wrong), since on a quick read it sounds surprising: in the first sentence, are you saying that perverting the course of justice is a wide range of conduct covered by a single offence in English common law, while obstruction of justice is a narrow(er) range of conduct covered by several different offences in US law?

  Regarding the similar laws, e.g. in Poland and France (and the ICC's comment, which I started as a section of perverting ...), would it make sense to create a third, broader, world-wide overview article? For a non-lawyer, all of these seem to be variations on "attacking the referee". The broad overview article would clarify the context of different legal traditions and different specific implementations and history of court cases - with sources, of course - for the whole world (as sources become available). There would need to be a good title - e.g. something that is descriptive without any formal legal meaning, or whatever term is used by people studying law who describe this overview. Based on your suggested title change, maybe after a move for Obstruction... to become Obstruction of justice in the United States, the overview article could then be Obstruction to justice - if that can be considered to include perverting ..., or at least place perverting ... in the wider context. Boud (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The US law consists of a set of offences each of which covers a very specific form of behaviour that is prohibited: see chapter 73. The English offence covers any behaviour whatsoever likely and intended to produce a certain result. If a form of behaviour that is not listed in chapter 73 is likely and intended to obstruct justice, it is not an offence under that statute (whereas it would be in England). Statutory offences tend to be narrower in scope, and lengthier in detail, because they are more specific. The English common law offence will have been exported to other common law countries in the former British Empire, so they will have had the same offence (unless and until they replaced it with a new statutory offence).

  The overall topic is in England typically called offences against the administration of justice (presently a redirect) or offences against public justice or offences against justice or etc. I don't know if it is possible to be more specific than that. Blackstone's Criminal Practice speaks of "Offences Akin to Perversion of the Course of Justice", even in English law (but notice the kindred offences are not the same offence). As for non-anglophone countries, you would really need to find a book on comparative law that covers this area. There is an International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, but I cannot find a volume on criminal law. I suggest that offences against public justice may be the best page name for an international overview article.

  The WP:COMMONNAME for the English offence is "perverting the course of justice". Perverting the course of justice in English law also satisfies GNG, as you can see from the chapters in "Archbold" [6] and "Blackstone" [7] and "Stone" [8] and "Card, Cross and Jones" [9], and all the other books on this subject, and periodical articles like [10] [11]. James500 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

   Done. I have moved the page to Obstruction of justice in the United States, which eliminates any potential overlap between the two pages. I will create an overview article on offences against public justice as soon as I have time. James500 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)  Done. There is now an overview article. James500 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)