Abouammo v. United States · ¶17

Contrary to the Ninth Circuit's view, § 1519's special intent provision does not lead to a different result. This Court has never looked to a statute's mens rea elements in considering venue. Nor would it make much sense to do so. Take the first (and more typical) of § 1519's mens rea requirements: that the falsifcation be undertaken “knowingly.” A knowing falsifcation occurs at the same place as an unknowing falsifcation—which is to say, at the place of the falsifcation. The mens rea element thus adds nothing to the conduct- focused analysis. The same is true of § 1519's demand that the falsifcation be done with the intent to obstruct an investigation. A falsifcation with that intent (like a falsifcation without it) again occurs wherever the falsifcation does— which here was in Abouammo's Seattle home. The Ninth Circuit treated that second mens rea element differently, on the theory…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.