Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the
Defendants-Appellants.
States v. Wells, 154 F.3d 412, 414-15 (7th Cir. 1998), where
the defendant’s lie about the proceeds of his robbery
sent the police on a wild goose chase. Similarly, concern
that a suspect may be concealing material documents
incites additional investigative efforts by the govern-
ment. See United States v. Tankersley, 296 F.3d 620, 623-
24 (7th Cir. 2002).
Thus, as we explained in a portion of our first opinion
not disturbed by the Supreme Court and therefore the
law of the case, the obstruction of justice statute does
not require proof of materiality unless the alleged ob-
struction takes the form of a lie that could not be ex-
pected to have any effect on the justice process. United
States v. Buckley, 192 F.3d 708, 710 (7th Cir. 1999). Being
able to deny the materiality of a document is a common
reason for concealment. So it is enough for convic-
tion that a document was concealed in order to make
it unavailable in an official proceeding. See, e.g., United
States v. Senffner, 280 F.3d 755, 762 (7th Cir. 2002); United
States v. Philips, 583 F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (10th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Carson, 560 F.3d 566, 584 (6th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 197-98 (3d Cir. 2007).
The evidence that the boxes were removed in order to
conceal documents from the government investigators
was compelling, even though Black’s secretary loyally
testified that Black intended to remove the documents to
a temporary office that she would set up for him in her
home because he had to vacate his office at Hollinger
within ten days. Her testimony was inconsistent with
his having put the boxes in his car (not hers, which was
at the scene) and taken them to his home rather than to
Case: 07-4080 Document: 108 Filed: 10/29/2010 Pages: 15
10-29-10