Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Some aspects of the case parallel the ongoing debate about whether Trump's actions could be considered obstruction of justice. | AP Photo Supreme Court takes case on what qualifies as obstruction

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take up a case about what kind of conduct can justify a criminal charge of obstruction of the Internal Revenue Service.

Buffalo, New York courier service owner Carl Marinello, who was convicted on eight counts of failing to file tax returns, is challenging his conviction on a ninth, more serious count of obstructing administration of the tax code.

The obstruction conviction raised alarm among both civil libertarians and business advocates because the trial court did not require prosecutors to prove that Marinello knew of any pending IRS audit, investigation or other proceeding. As a result, critics say, the government could use the statute to prosecute just about anyone who filed an inaccurate tax return or maintained false accounting records.

Some aspects of the case parallel the ongoing debate about whether President Donald Trump's actions in connection with the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents could be considered obstruction of justice. Lawyers have debated whether Trump's alleged effort to urge FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn amounted to the kind of "corrupt" conduct needed for an obstruction conviction.

Others have questioned what Trump knew about such a probe and whether knowledge of an FBI investigation, as opposed to grand jury action, would be sufficient to lay the groundwork for an obstruction charge.

Lawyers say any impact on Trump's situation is likely to be limited because the statute at issue in the Marinello case pertains solely to the tax code. In addition, the Supreme Court already ruled in 2005—in a case involving accounting firm Arthur Andersen—that a defendant must know about a pending or looming official proceeding in order to be convicted of obstruction of justice.

However, some believe there could be an impact on obstruction laws generally, especially those that are vaguely worded.

"I think the court looking at this is going to have real concern over overinclusiveness and vagueness and that sort of broad language about unbounded prosecutorial discretion could have an impact on other obstruction statutes," said Jeffrey Green, an attorney with Sidley & Austin who prepared a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers brief urging the Supreme Court to take up at the case.

"We’re delighted there was a grant," Green said. "Taxpayers need to know where the lines are."

The New York-based 2nd Circuit upheld Marinello's tax-code obstruction conviction, but two judges of different ideological stripes publicly dissented from the court's refusal to reconsider the issue en banc.

"Prosecutorial power is not just the power to convict those we are sure have guilty minds; it is also the power to destroy people. How easy it is under the panel's opinion for an overzealous or partisan prosecutor to investigate, to threaten, to force into pleading, or perhaps (with luck) to convict anybody," wrote Judge Dennis Jacobs, joined by Judge Jose Cabranes. "Indiscriminate application of this omnibus clause serves only to snag citizens who cannot be caught in the fine-drawn net of specified offenses, or to pile on offenses when a real tax cheat is convicted."

Jacobs is an appointee of President George H.W. Bush. Cabranes was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The Supreme Court announced its decision to take the obstruction-focused case in a set of orders released Tuesday, one day after the court's final scheduled sitting for the current term. The justices are likely to hear arguments in the case sometime this fall.

In addition to the criminal defense bar, the libertarian Cause of Action Institute and the American College of Tax Counsel urged the Supreme Court to wade into the dispute.