KIMBA M. WOOD, District Judge.
On November 18, 2010, a grand jury indicted Julian Heicklen, charging him with attempting to influence the actions or decisions of a juror of a United States Court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1504, a federal jury tampering statute. The Indictment states that, from October 2009 through May 2010, in front of the entrance to the United States Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Courthouse"), Heicklen distributed pamphlets that advocated jury nullification. (Dkt. No. 1.) Heicklen has chosen to exercise his constitutional right to represent himself, and the Court has appointed stand-by counsel to assist him. Heicklen now moves to dismiss the Indictment on the ground that it is insufficient, because it fails to allege all the required elements of the crime, and on the ground that it is duplicitous, because it alleges multiple distinct crimes in one count. Heicklen also moves to dismiss the Indictment on the ground that the statute, both on its face and as applied, is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment and unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Heicklen also moves for a jury trial and a bill of particulars,
Heicklen advocates passionately for the right of jurors to determine the law as well as the facts. The Government states that, in advocating these views, Heicklen has on several occasions stood outside the entrance to the Courthouse, holding a sign reading "Jury Info" and distributing pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association ("FIJA"). (Government's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motions ("Govt.'s Mem.") at 1.)
The pamphlets state that a juror has not just the responsibility to determine the facts of a case before her on the basis of the evidence presented, but also the power to determine the law according to her conscience.
In opposition to Heicklen's motion, the Government quotes an excerpt of a transcript of a recorded conversation that it alleges Heicklen had with an undercover agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), in which the agent specifically identified herself as a juror; the agent was not actually a juror.
In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court relies on the Indictment and accepts the allegations of the Indictment as true. United States v. Goldberg, 756 F.2d 949, 950 (2d Cir.1985). In full, the Indictment charges that:
Heicklen argues that the Indictment does not charge all of the elements of the crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1504 and must be dismissed.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him. U.S. Const., amend. VI. This guarantee is given effect, in part, by Rule
An indictment "must be read to include facts which are necessarily implied by the specific allegations made." United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 177 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotations omitted). Generally, a facially valid indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury suffices to call for a trial on the merits of the charges set forth therein, so long as the indictment provides sufficient detail to permit the preparation of a defense and to protect the defendant against double jeopardy. See Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). Thus, "[u]nless the government has made what can fairly be described as a full proffer of the evidence it intends to present at trial ... the sufficiency of the evidence is not appropriately addressed on a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment." United States v. Perez, 575 F.3d 164, 166-67 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). Accordingly, an indictment that alleges the essential elements of the crime and states specific facts indicating at least the time and the place of the alleged offense is generally sufficient. LaSpina, 299 F.3d at 177.
In this case, however, the basis for the motion to dismiss the Indictment is neither a pretrial challenge to the evidence nor a claim that the indictment is not pled with sufficient specificity, but rather is an argument that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense as a matter of law. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b) provides that "[a] party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial of the issue." Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b); see also United States v. Covington, 395 U.S. 57, 60-61, 89 S.Ct. 1559, 23 L.Ed.2d 94 (1969) (holding that where determinative questions of law were decided in his favor, defendant was entitled to dismissal of indictment); United States v. Bodmer, 342 F.Supp.2d 176, 189 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (Scheindlin, J.) (dismissing indictment on the ground that statute contravened the constitutional fair notice requirement). Because federal crimes are "solely creatures of statute," Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 213, 105 S.Ct. 3127, 87 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted), "a federal indictment can be challenged on the ground that it fails to allege a crime within the terms of the applicable statute." United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71, 75-76 (2d Cir.2012). "The sufficiency of an indictment and the interpretation of a federal statute are both matters of law."
In considering the Indictment, the Court accepts all pertinent allegations as true. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n. 16, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367 (1952); United States v. Goldberg, 756 F.2d 949, 950 (2d Cir.1985). As the Government points out, "[t]here is little, if any, dispute about the factual background of this matter." (Govt.'s Mem. at 1.) The Indictment states that Heicklen "attempted to influence the actions and decisions" of a juror of a United States Court on "an issue or matter pending before such juror," in that, from October of 2009 through May of 2010, Heicklen "distributed pamphlets urging jury nullification, immediately in front of an entrance to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York." (¶ 1.)
The Indictment thus identifies the relevant time period, states the specific location of the alleged crime, and provides a general description of Heicklen's activities. The Indictment is stated with sufficient specificity.
The question remaining is whether Heicklen's alleged activities, accepted as true, are prohibited by the statute. Whether or not the Indictment charges an offense squarely presents an issue of law determinable before trial. Cf. Crowley, 236 F.3d at 108. In order to answer this question, the Court must first determine what the statute proscribes.
"Statutory construction ... is a holistic endeavor." Auburn Hous. Auth. v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 138, 144 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). When interpreting statutes, courts read statutory terms in light of the surrounding language and framework of the statute. Id.
In construing a statute, courts "must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose." Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 252, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 158 L.Ed.2d 529 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz LLP, 637 F.3d 117, 125 (2d Cir.2011). "The first step is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case." Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Am. Soc. of Composers, Authors, Publishers, 627 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir.2010). "[I]f the language of a statute is `unambiguous,' no further inquiry is required." Phong Thanh Nguyen v. Chertoff, 501 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir.2007).
However, "where statutory language is ambiguous a court may resort to the canons of statutory interpretation and
As with any exercise in statutory construction, the Court begins with the text of the statute and draws inferences about its meaning from its composition and structure. United States v. Gray, 642 F.3d 371, 377 (2d Cir.2011). The federal statute prohibiting influencing a juror by writing provides that
18 U.S.C. § 1504.
The Court understands the statute to contain three elements:
The second element is most logically understood as containing two parallel adjectival phrases describing the type of "action or decision" of a juror that cannot be influenced — 1) an action or decision of a juror upon any issue or matter pending before that juror, or before the jury of which he is a member; and 2) an action or decision of a juror pertaining to his duties. Determining the scope of the statute initially requires determining what constitutes an "issue or matter" pending before a juror and what falls within a "juror's duties."
Black's Law Dictionary defines "issue" as a "point in dispute between two or more parties." (9th ed.2009).
Black's Law Dictionary defines "matter" as either "[a] subject under consideration, esp. involving a dispute or litigation; case" or "[s]omething that is to be tried or proved; an allegation forming the basis of a claim or defense." (Id.).
The canon of construction known as noscitur a sociis (or "it is known by its associates") instructs that the meaning of a word may be determined by the words surrounding it and that courts should "avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying
Similarly, the fact that the statute separately prohibits influencing the action or decision of a juror "upon an issue or matter pending before that juror" and "pertaining to his duties" means that "pertaining to his duties" must have a distinct meaning from "issue or matter pending before that juror."
Black's Law Dictionary defines "duty" as a "legal obligation that is owed or due to another and that needs to be satisfied; an obligation for which somebody else has a corresponding right." (9th ed.2009). The particular legal obligation that jurors undertake is summarized in the oath that they swear before being impaneled, stating that "you do solemnly swear that you shall well and truly try this issue now on trial and a true verdict give according to the law and the evidence." The core of a juror's duties, then, is a commitment with regard to how a juror renders a verdict — an obligation to give a verdict according to the law and the evidence.
The statute's separate listing of "issue or matter" and "juror's duties" thus prohibits attempts to influence the action or decision of a juror with regard to both the substantive questions before a juror ("issue or matter") and pertaining to the procedural obligations of a juror ("juror's duties"). It does not, however, treat influencing the substantive and procedural points as the same.
A defendant's actions are encompassed within the requirements of the statute's second element if he attempts to influence a juror's actions or decisions on
The statute thus prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror upon any case or point in dispute before that juror by means of a written communication in relation to that case or that point in dispute.
Accordingly, the Court reads the plain text of the statute to require that a defendant must have sought to influence a juror through a written communication in relation either to a specific case before that juror or to a substantive point in dispute between two or more parties before that juror. Given the potential ambiguity in both the second and third elements
The federal statute prohibiting influencing a juror by writing was originally passed by Congress on June 10, 1872 as "An Act to prevent and punish the Obstruction of the Administration of Justice in the Courts of the United States" (the "Act").
An illuminating commentary on the Act, however, can be found in instructions that
Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F.Cas. 992, 994-95 (C.C.D.Cal.1872) (Field, J.) Justice Field's jury instruction identifies the impetus for the Act's passage as the manipulation of the grand jury into "an instrument for the gratification of private malice." Id. He characterizes the Act as having been passed primarily to prevent the manipulation of grand juries through the personal solicitation of jurors in order to secure or to prevent the indictment of particular parties.
Federal courts have had few opportunities to consider 18 U.S.C. § 1504.
The statute has also been referenced by private plaintiffs attempting to present information directly to a grand jury in order to obtain an indictment.
All of the published cases involving 18 U.S.C. § 1504 involve parties attempting to influence grand juries with regard either to particular cases being brought against them or with regard to particular cases they would like the grand jury to bring — exactly the types of situations Justice Field described the statute as being intended to prevent. These situations all differ fundamentally from the case before the Court, in which Heicklen is charged with jury tampering despite having no inkling of what type of case was before the juror who approached him and no intent to affect the outcome of a specific case.
To the extent any ambiguity remains in the statute's interpretation, the statute should be construed narrowly if the statute, construed broadly, would potentially violate the Constitution. "When a federal court is dealing with a federal statute challenged as overbroad, it should, of course, construe the statute to avoid constitutional problems, if the statute is subject to such a limiting construction." New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769, n. 24,
When a statute's language is ambiguous, "[i]t is well settled that federal courts have the power to adopt narrowing constructions of federal legislation. Indeed, the federal courts have the duty to avoid constitutional difficulties by doing so if such a construction is fairly possible." Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 330-31, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 368-70, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971). "[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress." Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. and Const. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1392, 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988); Empire HealthChoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 2005).
As discussed below, the holdings of federal cases brought under similar statutes indicate that a broad reading of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 could raise First Amendment problems because of its potential to chill speech about judicial proceedings. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Although "political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, ... in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse." McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). The First Amendment reflects "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Snyder v. Phelps, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 1215, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). "Indeed, the Amendment exists so that this debate can occur — robust, forceful, and contested. It is the theory of the Free Speech Clause that `falsehood and fallacies' are exposed through `discussion,' `education,' and `more speech.'" Arizona Free Enter. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2806, 2835, 180 L.Ed.2d 664 (2011) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)). That is because "speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." Snyder, 131 S.Ct. at 1215 (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64,
Federal courts have had few opportunities to consider the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 because jury tampering is generally prosecuted under the statute prohibiting influencing a juror generally, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, or through contempt statutes. But, in two cases arising under state contempt statutes, the Supreme Court has addressed in more detail the tension that Heicklen highlights between the protections of the First Amendment and the need to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.
In Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941), the Supreme Court addressed a situation in which petitioners had been found guilty of contempt by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for letters pertaining to pending litigation that they had published in local newspapers. Finding that the "unqualified prohibitions laid down by the framers [in the First Amendment] were intended to give to liberty of the press, as to the other liberties, the broadest scope that could be countenanced in an orderly society," the Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment protected out-of-court publications pertaining to a pending case just as much as it protected any other type of speech. Id. at 268, 62 S.Ct. 190. Given the significant impact of the contempt convictions on freedom of expression, the Court held that the convictions could be justified only in reference to a "clear and present danger" to the administration of justice, and that the facts of the case did not constitute such a danger.
In Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 8 L.Ed.2d 569 (1962), the Supreme Court considered again "the scope of the constitutional protection to be enjoyed by persons when the publication of their thoughts and opinions is alleged to be in conflict with the fair administration of justice." Id. at 376, 82 S.Ct. 1364. In that case, a judge of the Bibb County Superior Court issued a charge to a grand jury to investigate public corruption. Wood, the elected sheriff in Bibb County, issued a press release attacking the judge's charge. Wood then distributed to the grand jury a letter implying that the allegations in the charge were false and urging the jury to investigate instead the Bibb County Democratic Executive. Id. at 380, 82 S.Ct. 1364. Wood was convicted of contempt. Id. at 380-81, 82 S.Ct. 1364. Starting with the premise that "the right of courts to conduct their business in an untrammeled way lies at the foundation of our system of government," the Court nevertheless found that when the contempt power is used to punish speech, especially speech outside the presence of the court, the contempt power is limited by the First Amendment. Id. at 383, 82 S.Ct. 1364. The Court held that the facts in Wood did not constitute a clear and present danger to the administration of justice, and that,
Decisions applying the clear and present danger test articulated in Bridges and Wood have consistently held that speech may be restricted only if that speech "is directed to inciting or producing" a threat to the administration of justice that is both "imminent" and likely to materialize. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969); Turney v. Pugh, 400 F.3d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159, 179 (2d Cir.2006) (reiterating the salience of the "clear and present danger test" in a different First Amendment context).
Bridges and Wood establish the principal that in order to be restricted, speech about judicial proceedings must present a clear and present danger to the administration of justice.
In that case, a friend of Frank Turney's was on trial for violation of a state criminal statute prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm. Turney approached three members of the venire of that case, while they were inside the courthouse wearing badges identifying themselves as jurors, and he instructed them to call FIJA's toll-free number, which greeted callers with a recorded message informing them about their "rights as jurors" and allowed them to leave their addresses in order to receive more information by mail. Turney v. State, 936 P.2d 533, 536-37 (Alaska 1997). In addition to focusing on the case because it involved his personal friend, Turney was also interested because he was a critic of that particular state statute, having himself been previously convicted under a similar
Prior to his trial for jury tampering, Turney raised an interlocutory appeal challenging the state jury tampering statute as unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. Turney argued that the statute did not link the crime of jury tampering to communications intended to influence a juror's actions with regard to a particular case and that therefore the statute had a "reach so wide that virtually any communication to a juror may be criminal." Id. at 539 (internal quotation omitted; emphasis in original). Agreeing that there could be constitutional problems with such a far-reaching statute, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the statute was not overbroad because it required "a specific intention to influence how jurors decide a particular case" as well as knowledge that he or she is communicating with a juror. Id. at 541 (emphasis added). Turney was subsequently convicted at trial of three counts of jury tampering.
Turney's habeas petition was denied. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that "the First Amendment, while generally quite protective of speech concerning judicial proceedings, does not shield the narrow but significant category of communications to jurors made outside of the auspices of the official proceeding and aimed at improperly influencing the outcome of a particular case." Turney, 400 F.3d at 1203. Accordingly, the court held that the Alaska Supreme Court's conclusion that the jury tampering statute was constitutional was not "a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." Id. at 1205.
The relevant cases establish that the First Amendment squarely protects speech concerning judicial proceedings and public debate regarding the functioning of the judicial system, so long as that speech does not interfere with the fair and impartial administration of justice. In Wood, the Supreme Court held that even speech to a grand juror may be protected by the First Amendment if it does not present a clear and present danger to the functioning of the courts. 370 U.S. at 395, 82 S.Ct. 1364. At the same time, the First Amendment does not create a right to influence juries outside of official proceedings, Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 366, 66 S.Ct. 1029, 90 L.Ed. 1295 (1946) (Frankfurter, J. concurring), because "[d]ue process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966). Consistent with this interpretation, the court in Turney found that the narrow category of speech knowingly made to jurors outside of an official proceeding and "with the intent to influence the outcome of a specific case" was not protected by the First Amendment. 400 F.3d at 1201 (emphasis in original).
A broad construction of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 that encompassed speech to a juror on any subject that could be considered by a juror would arguably chill protected speech because it could sweep within its prohibitions speech that was not made with the intent of influencing the outcome of a particular case and that did not pose a clear and present danger to the administration
Based upon the plain meaning of the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1504, reinforced by relevant judicial interpretations and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the Court holds that a person violates the statute only when he knowingly attempts to influence the action or decision of a juror upon an issue or matter pending before that juror or pertaining to that juror's duties by means of written communication made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror or in relation to a point in dispute between the parties before that juror.
Heicklen's alleged actions do not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1504. The Indictment alleges that Heicklen "distributed pamphlets urging jury nullification, immediately in front of an entrance to the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York." (¶ 1.) Both pamphlets discuss the role of juries in society and urge jurors to follow their consciences regardless of instructions on the law.
Heicklen's pamphlets self-evidently pertain to a "juror's duties," satisfying the requirements for liability under the second element of 18 U.S.C. § 1504. To satisfy the requirements for liability under the third element of 18 U.S.C. § 1504, however, the pamphlets must have been written or distributed in relation to an "issue or matter" pending before that juror. The two pamphlets do not relate to an "issue" pending before a juror, because a juror's duties are not a point in dispute between the parties to a suit. Understanding "matter" to mean "case," the pamphlets could trigger liability under the statute's third element if they were distributed in relation to a particular case pending before a juror. But unlike in Turney, there is no allegation that Heicklen distributed the pamphlets in relation to a specific case. Indeed, the Government concedes that it "does not allege that the defendant targeted a particular jury or a particular issue." (Govt.'s Mem. at 28.)
The Government agrees that the pamphlets pertain to a juror's duties but argues that they also relate to "an issue or matter" because they could encourage a juror to follow her conscience instead of the law, thus affecting the outcome of a case. Every aspect of how a juror renders a verdict has the potential to influence the outcome of a case, however, and thus any communication pertaining to a juror's duties would also relate to an issue or matter. Such an expansive interpretation
Because the Indictment does not allege that Heicklen attempted to influence a juror through a written communication made in relation to a specific case before a juror or in relation to a point in dispute before a juror, the Court finds that the Indictment fails to state all of the elements of the offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 1504 and must be dismissed as legally insufficient.
Even if the Court were to conclude that the second and third elements were susceptible to a broader reading, that reading would at most render 18 U.S.C. § 1504 facially ambiguous. See Aleynikov, 676 F.3d at 81-82. "[A]mbiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity," Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971), and courts should construe an ambiguous criminal statute so as to apply it only to conduct that is clearly covered. Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 596, 81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312 (1961); United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997). Given the ambiguity in the statute, Heicklen could not have known that his actions would violate 18 U.S.C. § 1504.
The Court's holding merely maintains the existing balance that federal courts have found between freedom of speech and the administration of justice. Attempts to tamper with a jury in order to influence the outcome of a trial or a grand jury proceeding are still clearly prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1504. Efforts to distribute leaflets to jurors in the immediate vicinity of courthouses may still be sanctioned through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions such as those promulgated pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 1315 and 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.415(c). The Court declines to stretch the interpretation of the existing statute prohibiting communications with a juror in order to cover speech that is not meant to influence the actions of a juror with regard to a point in dispute before that juror or the outcome of a specific case before that juror.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Indictment is GRANTED. The Defendant's other motions are now moot and are dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
(Gov't Mem. Ex. A.)
Ch. 99, 4 Stat. 487.
The catalyst for the 1831 Act was concern about judicial overreaching and its effects on free speech, arising out of a contempt of court order issued by Judge James H. Peck of the United States District Court for Missouri. See Arthur J. Stansbury, Report of the Trial of James H. Peck, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Missouri, Before the Senate of the United States, on an Impeachment Preferred by the House of Representatives Against Him for High Misdemeanors in Office (1833). Luke Lawless, a Missouri attorney, had written an article, signed only as "A Citizen" and published in the Missouri Advocate on April 8, 1826, criticizing a prior ruling by Judge Peck in a case that Lawless had argued. Id. Judge Peck then charged the editor of the Missouri Advocate with contempt of court for publishing a "false statement, tending to bring odium on the court." Id. In court, Lawless identified himself as the author, and Judge Peck found Lawless guilty of contempt, sentenced him to one day in jail, and suspended his law license. Id. Lawless petitioned Congress for an investigation. The and the Senate, after extensive hearings, acquitted Judge Peck on January 31, 1831. Id. In response to Judge Peck's acquittal, Representative Buchanan introduced the 1831 Act, which limited the contempt powers of the federal judiciary and transferred the power to punish certain contempt crimes, such as jury tampering, to the executive branch. 4 Stat. 487. See Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 266-67, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941); Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 45-48, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941).
17 Stat. 378
The act has been little changed since. In the Revised Statutes, enacted by Congress in 1874 as a comprehensive official codification of existing federal law at the time, the 1872 Act was split into two sections, with the first sentence forming section 5404, prohibiting influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally, and the second sentence forming section 5405, prohibiting influencing a juror by writing. Rev. Stat. sec. 5404-5, p. 1047. In 1909, section 5405 of the Revised Statutes became Section 137 of the Criminal Code, and the phrase "without the order previously obtained of the court before which the said juror is summoned" was deleted. Act of March 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 137, 35 Stat. 1113; see also S.Rep. No. 10, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1909). When the United States Code was reorganized, Section 137 became Section 243 of Title 18 and the paragraph "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury" was added at the end in order to remove the possibility that a proper request to appear before a grand jury might be construed as a technical violation of the statute. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770. In 1994, the statute was renumbered Section 1504 of Title 18. Sept. 13, 1994, Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), 108 Stat. 2147.
U.S. Const., amend. I.
