Background
Shaquiel Mendez was convicted of conspiracy to tamper with a witness after an assault on a cooperating witness in a jail. The witness, Joshua Brooks, had previously provided information to federal agents regarding a murder investigation. Mendez and others retrieved discovery materials from another inmate and assaulted Brooks to prevent him from communicating with law enforcement.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed whether the government proved a federal nexus under 18 U.S.C. Section one thousand five hundred twelve subsection a two C. Citing Fowler versus the United States, the court held that the statute requires a connection to federal law enforcement. The government must show that the likelihood of communication to a federal officer was more than remote. The court found it reasonably likely that Brooks would have spoken to a federal officer again because he had already proffered and the case had not yet gone to trial.
To meet this standard, the government need not prove that such a communication, had it occurred, would have been federal beyond a reasonable doubt, nor even that it is more likely than not.
Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668, 678 (2011)
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that a prior proffer by a witness establishes a reasonable likelihood of future federal communication, satisfying the federal nexus requirement for witness tampering charges even if the witness has not yet testified in federal court.