In The Courts

In United States v. Callipari, 2004 WL 1088746 (1st Cir. May 17, 2004), Defendant Callipari appealed his conviction for his role in a scheme to engage in unauthorized option trades by making use of a closed account at Fidelity Investments. Callipari was convicted by a jury for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of an SEC proceeding.

Among the issues raised on appeal was whether the district court's instruction on obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. ' 1505 adequately conveyed that the government must prove an obstructive “nexus” between the defendant's actions and the proceeding. The defendant argued that the district court should have instructed the jury expressly that to be found to “corruptly … ndeavor” to obstruct the “proper administration of the law” under 18 U.S.C. ' 1505, the defendant's conduct must have had “the natural and probable effect” of obstructing the SEC investigation, citing a phrase used in United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600 (1995) (interpreting the word “corruptly” under 18 U.S.C. ' 1503). The district court's jury instructions had defined the word “endeavor” in part as “includ[ing] conduct which is aimed at influencing, intimidating or impeding the proceedings,” but did not include Aguilar's “natural and probable effect” language.