United States v. Aguilar (1994)
- Docket
- 94-270
- Decided
- 1994-01-01
Summary
Question: (1) Can an individual who endeavors to obstruct a grand jury proceeding by making false and misleading statements to prospective witnesses be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? (2) Can an individual who knows of a wiretap and discloses it to a target in order to obstruct the interception of the target's conversations be found guilty, regardless of whether the authorization had expired by the time the disclosure was made? Conclusion: No, Yes. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court, affirming in part and reversing in part. The Supreme Court held that making false statements to an FBI agent who may or may not testify at trial is not sufficient to support a conviction for obstruction of justice. Aguilar’s conviction for disclosing a wiretap was proper, however, because the statute does not require that the wiretap is currently in force. The First Amendment did not require excluding expired wiretaps from the statute either. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that Aguilar’s conviction for obstructing justice should be overturned, but arguing that the wiretapping conviction should be overturned as well. There was no way Aguilar could interfere with a wiretap that no longer existed. Justice Antonin Scalia also concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing to affirm the disclosure of wiretapping conviction, but arguing that the obstruction of justice should be affirmed as well.