## Facts

- During the 2008 presidential campaign, David C. Kernell learned that vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin used the Yahoo email account “gov.palin@yahoo.com.”
- Kernell accessed the account by using Yahoo’s password-reset process (“forgotten password”) and answering identifying prompts and a secret question, then created a new password and logged in.
- He viewed account contents and publicly posted online about having accessed the account, including information facilitating access by others.
- After public attention to the incident, Kernell deleted or altered computer files and other data linked to the intrusion; forensic analysis showed efforts to remove traces of the conduct.
- Federal authorities investigated. Kernell was charged with multiple offenses, but a jury convicted him only of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 based on his deletion/alteration of computer data.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is unconstitutionally vague as applied, particularly the phrase “in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case.”
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Kernell knowingly altered or destroyed records with intent to impede a matter within federal jurisdiction, “in relation to” or “in contemplation of” a federal investigation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held § 1519 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Kernell.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to prove Kernell acted with the required obstructive intent in contemplation of a reasonably foreseeable federal investigation.

## Legal Principles

- A vagueness challenge to § 1519 is evaluated as applied; the statute provides adequate notice when it clearly reaches deliberate destruction or alteration of records to impede a matter within federal jurisdiction.
- “In contemplation of” under § 1519 covers anticipatory obstruction: conduct intended to impede an investigation that has not yet begun but is reasonably foreseeable.
- Section 1519’s scienter and purpose requirements—acting “knowingly” and “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence”—limit the statute’s reach and reduce vagueness concerns.
- Evidence such as timing of deletions, targeted removal of incriminating data, and statements reflecting fear of law enforcement can support a finding of contemplated federal investigation and obstructive intent.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Kernell’s § 1519 obstruction conviction, concluding the statute was sufficiently clear as applied and that the jury could reasonably find he deleted digital evidence to hinder a foreseeable federal investigation.


United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012)