## Facts

- A federal investigation targeted a narcotics enterprise allegedly run by Rolland Callahan, Jr.
- Antonio Lavere Thomas, a lawyer who represented Callahan, and Richard Rose, an accountant, were tried on multiple counts alleging assistance in concealing and laundering drug proceeds.
- Rose was acquitted on all counts; Thomas was acquitted on 17 of 18 counts.
- Thomas was convicted only of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, based on his sworn testimony in a related civil forfeiture trial concerning seized currency.
- The obstruction theory alleged that, while aware of a federal grand jury investigation of Callahan, Thomas falsely testified that he had not known Callahan by any name other than “Rolland Callahan,” had not known him as “Robert Johnson,” and had not introduced him as “Robert Johnson.”
- To prove falsity, the government introduced evidence that Callahan used the name “Robert Johnson” in a shopping-center construction deal and that Thomas acted as attorney for the person using that name and signed a contract as “attorney for Robert Johnson.”

## Issues

1. In a § 1503 prosecution premised on allegedly false testimony, must the jury be instructed that the statements must have had the “natural and probable effect” of obstructing justice (i.e., be capable of influencing the proceeding)?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to prove that Thomas’s challenged answers had the required “natural and probable effect” on the due administration of justice, such that retrial would be permitted after instructional error?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held the jury must be instructed that, in a § 1503 case based on false testimony, the government must prove the statements had the natural and probable effect of obstructing justice.
- The government conceded the district court’s instructions omitted this effect requirement.
- The court further held the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the “natural and probable effect” standard.
- The obstruction conviction was reversed without remand for a new trial, barring retrial on that count.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1503’s “omnibus clause” criminalizes a corrupt “endeavor” to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.
- The government need not prove successful obstruction, but must prove a sufficient nexus: the conduct must have the “natural and probable effect” of interfering with the administration of justice.
- False testimony alone does not establish § 1503 obstruction; the prosecution must show the particular statements, in context, were capable of obstructing the relevant proceeding.
- When an appellate court reverses a conviction for evidentiary insufficiency, double jeopardy bars retrial on the same charge.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Thomas’s § 1503 obstruction conviction because the jury was not instructed on, and the evidence did not prove, that the disputed testimony had the natural and probable effect of obstructing the due administration of justice; the insufficiency ruling precluded a new trial.


United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1990)