18 U.S.C. § 1504
Influencing juror by writing
Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1952–2012 · leading case: United States v. Heicklen, 858 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
United States v. Heicklen, 858 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “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.”
In Re New Haven Grand Jury, 604 F. Supp. 453 (D. Conn. 1985). “Indeed, the initiation by a private party of written communications with a grand jury, with the exception of a request for an opportunity to appear, may constitute a crime.”
Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 1504 and Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional, so that he can write directly to sitting grand jurors about Obama’s alleged federal crime.”
Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962). “" 18 U. S. C. § 1504 . [2] Petitioner's last statement was as follows: "My defense will be simply that I have spoken the truth.”
United States v. Lang, 364 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2004). “A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Johnny Lang and Defendant-Appellant Shari Lewis Lang of the following: (1) obstructing justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1504 , (2) acting as accessories after the fact to the distribution of heroin in violation of 18 U.”
In Re New York Times Co. to Unseal Wiretap & Search Warrant Materials, 577 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2009). “§ 1503 (criminalizing attempting to contact or influence a juror); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1504 (declaring that attempting to contact a juror in writing is a separate crime).”
United States v. William Henry Forrest & Maxine Forrest, 620 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1980). “C, § 1503 (corrupt influence or impeding of a juror, subject to a penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a $5,000 fine or both), 18 U.S.C. § 1504 (attempt to influence a juror by written *459 communication, subject to a penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a $1,000 fine or both)…”
United States v. Joseph S. Bukowski, 435 F.2d 1094 (7th Cir. 1970). “Equally meritless is the assertion that the Government has improperly employed contempt as a means of circumventing the limits of punishment for conduct such as respondent’s under 18 U.S.C. § 1504 . 5 Whether or not that Section may be applied against those already under…”
United States v. Smyth, 104 F. Supp. 283 (N.D. Cal. 1952). “68 The purpose of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1504 was to prevent anyone from attempting to bring pressure upon or intimidate a grand juror by a written communication with that intent.”
United States v. Arnold Faudman, 640 F.2d 20 (6th Cir. 1981). “or in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his…”
Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1985). “Ryan also sought unspecified mandamus relief, apparently directed at the United States Attorney’s office, based on the assertion that Judge Bilby illegally tampered with the jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 . . Ryan’s claim against his own attorney was dismissed with…”
Dock Perry Glenn v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Warden, 370 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1966). “This indictment charged tampering with petit jurors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 . After a hearing in which medical testimony was produced, the Court concluded that petitioner was not mentally competent to stand trial on the jury tampering charges, and pursuant to 18 U.”
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.