18 U.S.C. § 1508
Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
1996—Pub. L. 104–294 realigned margins for provisions beginning “shall be fined” and ending “one year, or both.”
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” in par. following par. (b).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: In Re United States, 441 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2006).
In Re United States, 441 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2006). “Further, Rule 6(e)’s criminal statutory analogue, 18 U.S.C. § 1508 , makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully record (or attempt to record) the proceedings of any grand jury while it is deliberating or voting, and to listen to or observe (or attempt to listen to or observe)…”
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “10 The Court cites a number of cases interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1508 , which concerns obstruction of justice.”
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960). “" *615 The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is enjoined by statute (see 18 U. S. C. § 1508 , and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6 (d) and (e)), and a necessary initial step in the proceedings was to read the record of the morning's grand jury proceedings.”
Jerome Singleton v. City of New York, Ronald Salzer & Anthony Dellaventura, 632 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1980). “We do not know and the law lacks curiosity on the point because it is irrelevant. For good reason it is against federal policy even to inquire into what led a jury to agree or fail to agree.”
Pitta v. Medeiros, 90 F.4th 11 (1st Cir. 2024). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (a) (banning "record[ing], or attempt[ing] to record, the proceedings of any grand or petit jury in any court of the United States while such jury is deliberating or voting"); Fed.”
United States v. Linda Tackett (95-6127) Grayson Tackett (95-6128), 113 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 1997). “§ 1503 Prohibits Witness Tampering The most complicated issue that appellants raise is whether the United States may prosecute their attempt to influence Kirby’s anticipated testimony before the grand *607 jury under 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . The Second Circuit has held that the…”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald FULBRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant, 105 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1997). “Second, he argues that there was no “proceeding” pending at the time Fulbright filed the ‘Warrant,” since Ms bankruptcy case had already been dismissed.”
United States v. Marinello, 839 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2016). “his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror 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 judge, or other committing magistrate in his…”
United States v. Black, 483 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Ill. 2007). “, 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (making it illegal to knowingly record, listen to, or observe any grand or petit juries while they deliberate or vote); Fed.”
United States v. Timothy Cofield, 11 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 1994). “” Section 2 evolved into 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . See United States v. Essex, 407 F.”
United States v. Hawkins, 185 F. Supp. 3d 114 (D.D.C. 2016). “Conduct in the Information and Statement of the Offense establishes violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1508 and 1512(c)(2). The Court next considers Defendant’s conduct as set forth both in the Information and the Statement of the Offense which includes conduct that Defendant admitted…”
United States v. Rene De La Rosa, 171 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 1999). “To show a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (endeavoring to influence a juror in the discharge of his duty), the government must prove: (1) that a judicial proceeding was pending; (2) that the defendant had knowledge of the judicial proceeding; and (3) that the defendant acted…”
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.