The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of interfering with the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.
Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent used to allow any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court, though the witness may then exercise their rights, for example in the Fifth Amendment, if they believe their answer may serve to incriminate themselves.) If the person tried to protect a suspect (such as by providing a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their involvement in another crime), this may leave them liable to prosecution. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters, destroys, or conceals physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.
Obstruction can include crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion. read more
Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true
The above statute provides for a fine and/or up to five years in prison as punishment. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two broad categories of judicial proceedings may qualify as perjurious: Federal official proceedings, and Federal Court or Grand Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person.More generally, the statement must occur in the "course of justice," but this definition leaves room open for interpretation..One particularly precarious aspect of this phrasing is that it entails knowledge of the accused person’s perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. It is important to note the distinction here, between giving a false statement under oath and merely misstating a fact accidentally, though this distinction can be especially difficult to discern in court of law.
Harvey Windsor was wrongfully convicted of the murder of Rayford Howard which was on February 25th 1988 there was no Evidence to even point to him being there , in fact there were witnesses that couldnt Identify him ,we are lead to believe there was a Black Mustang there but in fact it was a Green Car ,,a Toyota or a Datsun all of this was with held from the court....the State relied on the in court indentification in 1992 from Sammy sue Osborn, saying Harvey Windsor had been at her house on the 25th February 1988, she lived 5 miles from where Rayford Howard was murdered she also at that time owned a Green Ford Maverick ,how can some one be convicted and sentenced to Death when there is Evidence to prove to be Innocent of any crime...she lied in court claiming she had only been shown photographs in a book which were in the Sheriffs office, she couldnt remember his name , the court did order for these photographs to be shown but no body knew where they were, so they just took her word for it of what she had been shown.....Randal Pepper was also murdered that same day where there was a Black mustang once again there was a witness that gave a discription of the two he had seen and he wasnt able to Identify Harvey Windsor , there was no prints in this store or any thing linking to Harvey Windsor being there ,no hair was found in the mustang or prints inside the car or on the car...there is claimed to be a partial print on a Cigarette but found in the ashtray of the mustang , of which Carol Curlee didnt kept a record of...this only piece of Evidence that they want us to believe that Harvey Windsor is guilty.....from 27th February on wards Harvey Windsor name and photographs were in the media with a reward being offered for his arrest and conviction...photographs had been given from relatives, this all started with a tag # which was on a car that Harvey Windsor had once owned , and yet none of the previous owners even knew what the tag # was, in fact one of the owners Alton Clark was shown forms in court showing the tag #, for him to be able to remember it...in his Statement he signed with an x and yet on the tag reciept there is a neatly written signiture..Harvey Windsor Innocent .....
No comments:
Post a Comment