18 U.S.C. § 1071
Concealing person from arrest
Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 134
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: United States v. Daniel Nelson Silva, 745 F.2d 840 (4th Cir. 1984).
United States v. Daniel Nelson Silva, 745 F.2d 840 (4th Cir. 1984). “§ 922 (h), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and 18 U.S.C. § 1071 , harboring and concealing a fugitive.”
United States v. Scott Faul, United States of Am. v. Yorie Von Kahl, United States of Am. v. David Ronald Broer A/K/A David Ronald Brewer, 748 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1985). “Broer asserts that the court 1) erred in denying his motion to suppress the shotgun found in his home because the search warrant was overly broad; 2) erred in allowing the jury to be sequestered under the care of the Marshals Service; 3) erred in permitting FBI Agent Brubaker to…”
United States v. Zabriskie (Dean), 415 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2005). “Dean and Slade Zabriskie appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for new trial on the grounds (1) the jury lacked sufficient evidence to convict them of concealing and harboring a fugitive from arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 , and (2) the district judge erred…”
United States v. Hayes, 518 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2008). “Terry Jean Hayes appeals her conviction for concealing a person from arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 and the resulting sentence of 33 months of imprisonment imposed by the district court.”
United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2000). “§ 846 ; two counts of harboring a fugitive from arrest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 ; and obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Herbert Murray Stephens, 906 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1990). “Appellant Herbert Murray Stephens appeals the District Court’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his plea for harboring and concealing a person from arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 . He claims that he did not enter the plea “knowingly and intelligently” because he was…”
United States v. Strain, 396 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2005). “GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Theresa Lucretia Strain was convicted by a jury of one count of harboring or concealing a fugitive, her husband Robert Navarrette Chavez, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 . The conviction would have been an easy affirmance if the case had been tried…”
United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012). “2000) (holding that language “defin[ing] the requisite intent for the offense” of harboring a fugitive, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 , was not an essential conduct element).”
United States v. Ronald R. Erdman, 953 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1992). “Ronald Erdman appeals from his conviction for harboring or concealing a fugitive in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 (1988). Erdman argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.”
United States v. Patricia King Hill, 279 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2002). “The harboring statute that Hill was convicted of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 , requires proof of four elements: “First, proof that a federal warrant had been issued for the fugitive’s arrest.”
United States v. Deanna Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). “” 18 U.S.C. § 1071 . In United States v. Foy, 416 F.”
United States v. Ella M. Andruska, 964 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1992). “A jury found Ella Andruska guilty of concealing fugitive Thomas Taylor from arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 . At sentencing, the district court called her behavior “aberrant” and departed downward from the Sentencing Guidelines’ applicable sentencing range.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.