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…”
United States v. Franklin, 546 F. Supp. 1133 (N.D. Ind. 1982). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . 3 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(1)(D) 4 imposes criminal penalties to protect the jury function and 28 U.”
Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re:, 142 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1998). “" 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (1994). Anyone monitoring the grand jury's activities would run the risk of violating these statutes.”
United States v. Ayeni, Shola, 374 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (2000). No less fundamental than jury seclusion is the principle that the jury — not the trial judge and not the attorneys — serves as the trier of fact.”
United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y 2003). “The statutes alleged to be violated, provide in relevant part as follows: 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (a) Whoever ... corruptly .”
United States v. Frank Desalvo, 26 F.3d 1216 (2d Cir. 1994). “§ 1623 (a), and four counts of obstructing justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . Judge Sifton sentenced DeSalvo to 30 months in prison, which reflected a three-level enhancement for causing a “substantial interference with the administration of justice.”
DuLaurence v. Telegen, 94 F. Supp. 3d 73 (D. Mass. 2015). “§ 1512 (c) and § 371, and count four alleges obstruction of judicial proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . Counts five to eight each seek to set aside the prior proceedings.”
United States v. Arnaldo Kennings, 861 F.2d 381 (3rd Cir. 1988). “In George , we reversed the conviction of a defendant charged with endeavoring by threats to influence, intimidate, and impede an officer of the District Court of the Virgin Islands in the discharge of his duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 , 13 reasoning that, because the…”
United States v. Watt, 911 F. Supp. 538 (D.D.C. 1995). “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 6, 8, 10, 16, 20, and 22 as Improperly Charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1508 The Indictment charges defendant with six counts of concealment for making false statements in testimony before a federal grand jury, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Ricardo Arredondo, 349 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2003). “1965) (denying Hoffa a new trial), she was prosecuted and convicted under the federal obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . Essex, 407 F.2d at 215-16 .”
United States v. Marra, 165 F. Supp. 2d 478 (W.D.N.Y. 2001). “On April 3, 2001, a federal grand jury in this District returned an indictment against defendant Marra, charging her with two counts of obstruction of justice, in *480 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . Count 1 charged defendant with assisting the fugitive Kopp and thereby…”
United States v. Gilboy, 160 F. Supp. 442 (M.D. Penn. 1958). “We do not stop to consider the possible application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1508 , or 28 (Pa.) P.S. § 830, nor the cases on the presence of unauthorized persons.”
United States v. J. J. Koehler, 544 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977). “§ 1510 for which he was indicted is concerned with the obstruction of justice prior to the initiation of judicial proceedings, and not subsequent thereto.”
Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Coop. Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., 202 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “Litigation Conduct In addition to' the predicate acts discussed in the preceding subsection, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have obstructed justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . At the outset, the court observes that federal obstruction and intimidation claims…”
Rudolph Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 372 (10th Cir. 1970). “18 U.S.C. § 1508 . But the prosecutor’s remarks do not disclose an effort to influence, intimidate, or threaten the witness into not testifying.”
Davit, John J. v. Davit, Cathy C., 173 F. App'x 515 (7th Cir. 2006). “” Davit also failed to state a claim under § 1962(c) because, other than the allegations against the judges who were dismissed, there were no allegations that any of the defendants participated in the operation or management of the Circuit Court of DuPage County.”
Clarence D. Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., 315 F.2d 660 (5th Cir. 1963). “See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1508 , Act of Aug. 2, 1956, c.”
Commonwealth v. Slocum, 559 A.2d 50 (Pa. 1989). “…to intentionally listen, by any manner, to the private deliberations of a jury. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103; accord 18 U.S.C.A. § 1508 .”
Kramer v. Bachan Aerospace Corp., 912 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1990). “We have held, however, that a violation of *156 18 U.S.C. § 1508 requires proof that an individual has “ ‘corruptly’ endeavor[ed] to interfere with the due administration of justice .”
In re Express-News Corp., 695 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1982). “While a statute makes it unlawful to record or listen to the proceedings of a grand or petit jury, 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (1976), the statute does not forbid jurors to speak after their deliberations are completed.”
United States v. Miller, 284 F. Supp. 220 (D. Conn. 1968). “Since it is of and from the community, it gives the law an acceptance which verdicts of judges could not do.”
United States v. Oscar Varela Garcia, 533 F. App'x 967 (11th Cir. 2013). “§§ 1956 (a)(1) (B) (i) and 1956(h) (“count three”); (4) conspiracy to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1508 and 371 (“count nine”); (5) obstruction of justice by torturing and murdering a government witness in a pending federal prosecution, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Steurer, 942 F. Supp. 1183 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “In Berardi , the Seventh Circuit held that it was permissible to join three acts, each of which could have constituted independent violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (obstruction statute), in one count where the conduct could fairly be characterized as a single, continuing offense.”
John Roe, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1998). “" 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (1994). Anyone monitoring the grand jury’s activities would run the risk of violating these statutes.”
United States v. Franklin, 837 F. Supp. 916 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “Franklin pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . Franklin is to be sentenced on November 19, 1993.”
United States v. Barry Bonds, 730 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2013). “They may therefore obstruct and impede the administration of justice within the meaning of the federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1508 , a statute that sweeps broadly.”
United States v. Holloway, 789 F. Supp. 957 (N.D. Ind. 1992). “18 U.S.C. § 1508 . The overlap is far from exact, but the search for an “analogous” guideline section cannot require an exact fit.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mogler (D. Ariz. 2020). “105 at 2) 22 Defendant Polanchek pleaded guilty to observing grand jury proceedings, a class A 23 misdemeanor offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 . See United States v. Mogler et al.”
United States v. Jackson, 22 F. Supp. 3d 636 (E.D. La. 2014). “Count 4 charges her with obstructing justice by providing false documentation to a federal Grand Jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1508 (a). On August 8, 2008, almost five years prior to the filing of the indictment, the Times-Picayune published an article on Nola.”
Grand Jury Proceedings, In Re:, 142 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1998).
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.