## Facts

- After the October 2001 anthrax letter incident on Capitol Hill, James Joseph Pickett, a U.S. Capitol Police officer, left a small pile of white powder and a handwritten note at a Capitol security post.
- The note stated the powder was part of a “Capitol Police training exercize [sic]” and implied exposure risks; the powder was later determined to be a sugar substitute.
- The incident triggered a Capitol Police response consistent with heightened security conditions.
- A grand jury indicted Pickett for (1) making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and (2) obstructing or interfering with the Capitol Police under 40 U.S.C. § 212a-2(d).
- The district court dismissed the obstruction count, denied dismissal of the § 1001 count, and a jury convicted Pickett on § 1001; he received probation, community service, and a fine.
- The § 1001 indictment alleged Pickett falsely claimed the powder was part of an authorized training exercise, in a matter “within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch,” but did not allege the statement occurred in either statutory category required for legislative-branch cases under § 1001(c).

## Issues

1. Whether, in a legislative-branch case, an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is insufficient if it fails to allege that the false statement concerned an “administrative matter” or a congressionally authorized “investigation or review” as required by § 1001(c).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pickett’s statement fell within either § 1001(c) category.

## Decision

- The court vacated Pickett’s conviction and ordered the indictment dismissed.
- Section 1001(c)’s “shall apply only to” limitation creates elements of the offense for matters within the legislative branch; those elements must be pleaded and proved.
- The indictment was defective because it did not allege the required § 1001(c) element (administrative matter or congressionally authorized investigation/review).
- The trial evidence was also insufficient to establish that Pickett’s statement was made in connection with either a covered “administrative matter” or a congressional “investigation or review.”
- Because the conviction failed on an element and the evidence was insufficient on that element, dismissal was required.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute states it applies “only to” specified circumstances, those limitations are substantive elements of the offense, not mere jurisdictional conditions.
- In legislative-branch prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the government must allege and prove that the false statement relates to either:
  - an “administrative matter” (including listed administrative functions such as claims, procurement, personnel/employment practices, or support services), or
  - an “investigation or review” conducted pursuant to the authority of a congressional committee, subcommittee, commission, or office.
- An indictment must contain all essential elements of the charged offense and provide adequate notice of what the defendant must meet at trial.
- A law-enforcement response by the Capitol Police, without proof of a congressionally authorized investigative or review process tied to the statement, does not satisfy § 1001(c)(2).

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that § 1001(c) narrows § 1001’s reach in legislative-branch matters by adding elements that must be charged and proved; because the indictment omitted those elements and the government failed to prove them at trial, the court vacated the conviction and ordered dismissal of the indictment.


United States v. Pickett, 353 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 2004)