## Facts

- Charles Andrew Fowler and others gathered in a Florida cemetery preparing to rob a Florida bank, wearing black clothes and gloves and using drugs and alcohol.
- Police Officer Christopher Todd Horner encountered the group, drew his gun, and requested identification.
- Fowler and others overpowered Horner and took his gun.
- After Horner addressed one participant by name, Fowler stated they could not “walk away” and shot and killed Horner.
- Federal prosecutors charged Fowler under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) for killing Horner with intent to prevent the communication of information about a possible federal offense to a federal law enforcement officer.
- The government’s theory was that Fowler killed Horner to prevent reporting of the planned bank robbery.

## Issues

1. In a § 1512(a)(1)(C) prosecution where the defendant acted to prevent communication to law enforcement officers generally (not specifically federal officers), what must the government prove to establish the required federal-officer communication element?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that, in these circumstances, the government must show a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal law enforcement officer.
- The Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s “possible or potential communication” standard as too low, and rejected a certainty requirement as too high.
- The Court did not decide whether the evidence satisfied the “reasonable likelihood” standard, leaving application and related procedural questions to the lower courts on remand.

## Legal Principles

- To prove § 1512(a)(1)(C), the government must establish: (1) a killing, (2) committed with intent to prevent a communication (3) about the commission or possible commission of a federal offense (4) to a federal law enforcement officer.
- Under § 1512(g)(2), the government need not prove the defendant’s knowledge that the targeted officer was a federal employee, but it must still prove an objective federal nexus.
- When the defendant’s intent is only to prevent communication to law enforcement in general, the federal nexus is satisfied only if there was a reasonable likelihood the information would have been communicated to a federal officer.
- “Reasonable likelihood” requires more than a speculative chance but less than proof that a federal communication would have occurred.

## Conclusion

The Court limited § 1512(a)(1)(C) in generalized-intent cases by requiring proof that it was reasonably likely the victim’s information would have reached federal law enforcement, vacating the conviction under a mere-possibility standard and remanding for further proceedings.


Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011)