Killing witnesses to stop testimony
Charles Andrew Fowler v. United States
In brief
The Court set a reasonable-likelihood test for communication to a federal officer, wiped out the Eleventh Circuit's ruling, and sent Fowler's case back for more proceedings.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · May 26, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- Charles Fowler’s federal witness-tampering conviction arose from the killing of Officer Christopher Horner.
- Who it affects
- Prosecutors bringing charges under this federal witness-tampering law must show a reasonable likelihood that relevant information would have reached a federal officer.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had to show a reasonable likelihood that relevant information would have been communicated to a federal officer, wiped out the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back for further proceedings (vacated and remanded).
Fowler's federal witness-tampering conviction arose from the killing of Officer Christopher Horner.
The federal law at issue makes it a crime to kill someone intending to stop communication to a U.S. law-enforcement officer about a federal offense.
Question presented
To prove a criminal violation of the federal witness tampering statute when a defendant allegedly kills a witness, must the government prove that the victim would have provided information regarding a crime to a court or a law enforcement officer?
What the Court decided
Holding
In such circumstances, the Government must establish a §1512(a)(1)(C) violation by showing there was a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer. 603 F. 3d 883, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Scaliawrote separately
- Dissenting · 2disagreed with the result
- Ginsburg
- Alitowrote the dissent
From the opinions
“The decision of the Court fails to follow the clear language of 18 U. S. C. §1512(a)(1)(C).”
What's next
The case returns to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's rule.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Fowler
Opinion added: Fowler
More questions
- What did Justice Scalia think prosecutors had to prove?
- He argued they should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the communication, if made, would have gone to a federal officer.
- Why did Justice Alito disagree?
- He argued that the Court added a new proof requirement that was not in the statute's text.
- What kind of information did the law cover?
- The statute refers to information about a federal offense that has happened or might happen.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.