by islander on August 6, 2023 6:33 am
OK. Here we go...

18 USC 1512(c) (2): Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding

For this one, the government has to show that Trump corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded any official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

18 USC 1512 (c) is a variation of what is called a specific intent crime, as opposed to a general intent crime.

To prove a general intent crime, the prosecution only needs to prove that the person intended to commit the action. Battery is an example of a general intent crime.

Hypothetical:

Person A steps on Person B’s toe.
Person A gets arrested for battery

Because this is a general intent crime, one way to negate the mens rea requirement would be to show that Person A stepped on Person B’s toe because someone shoved him, and thus he never intended to step on a toe.

To prove a specific intent crime, the government has to prove an actual intent to perform the act along with the intention for the consequence resulting from that act. Burglary (entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime) is a specific intent crime. Burglary requires entering a building or dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime.

Hypothetical:

Person A goes to a stranger’s house when nobody is home. He opens the door and goes in.

Because burglary is a specific intent crime, the prosecution has to show that the person (1) entered the home and (1) had the intention of committing a crime.

But Teri! How do you prove what someone intended? How can the jury know what was in a defendant’s mind?

Intention is generally proven through circumstantial evidence. If it was not possible to prove intent from circumstantial evidence, the only way to convict a person would be if that person confessed — and even that is problematic because what if the confession was coerced or the person is a pathological liar and will confess to anything?

Possibility #1: Person A enters someone else’s house. In Person A’s pocket is an invitation to the neighbor’s house with a note that says, “The door is open. Come on in! We will be in the backyard.” Person A explains that he got the address wrong and thus didn’t enter with an intent to commit a crime.

Possibility #2: Person A has, in his pocket, tools for picking the lock on a safe. (This guy is in trouble.)

Here is an example of a crime (and criminal intent) proven through circumstantial evidence: Someone ate my lunch when I wasn’t looking. Although there were no eyewitnesses, there were crumbs on the table and the floor, and a chair had been left out giving JJ access to the table.

I took the photo shortly after the crime was committed so I have a timestamp that the suspect was in the vicinity of the crime scene–and no other suspects were in the house. I’ll add that this suspect also has a history of committing (and attempting to commit) this particular crime. Regarding mens rea: JJ is a dog, but capable of forming criminal intent. The evidence: he waits until nobody is looking before trying to get on top of tables. Consciousness of guilt!! (I know my readers will come to JJ’s defense, but I am quite certain that I could persuade an impartial jury to convict.)

To be cont...