Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing — obstruction of justice enhancement

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 3, 2014//

Sentencing — obstruction of justice enhancement

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 3, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — obstruction of justice enhancement

Where the record is clear the defendant lied before the grand jury, the district court’s application of an enhancement for obstruction of justice is affirmed.

“[T]he error was harmless given the context of this case: Chychula was convicted following a court trial; the defendant’s only real dispute was whether her alleged diminished mental capacity prevented her from forming the intent to obstruct justice; and the district court previously rejected Chychula’s claim that her personality disorder rendered her ‘unable to distinguish truth from fiction or right from wrong,’ and ‘unable to form the [requisite] mental state’. And as we have noted, the record is clear that Chychula willfully lied about material matters while testifying before the grand jury. Moreover, the district judge imposed a sentence so far below the advisory guidelines range—almost 100 months below the bottom of that range—that there is no suggestion that the obstruction enhancement had an effect on the ultimate sentence imposed. See, e.g., Riney, 742 F.3d at 791 (concluding that the judge’s failure to make a willfulness finding was harmless ‘because the armed career criminal guideline trumped the effect of the obstruction enhancement’ and the district judge sentenced the defendant below the advisory guideline range); United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900, 906 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘Harmless error review “removes the pointless step of returning to the district court when we are convinced that the sentence the judge imposes will be identical to the one we remanded.”’) (quoting United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 667 (7th Cir. 2009)). We have no doubt that if we remanded for more explicit findings, the judge would impose the same sentence again.”

Affirmed.

12-3695 U.S. v. Chychula

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coleman, J., Tinder, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests