Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The government's reply brief in Arthur Andersen v. United States is here. In summary, the Solicitor General argues:
The lower courts correctly defined the term "corruptly" in Section 1512(b) as "having an improper purpose" "to subvert, undermine, or impede the fact-finding ability of an official proceeding." The lower courts’ definition is consistent with the purpose-based definition long given to the identical term in the general obstruction-of-justice statute, 18 U.S.C. 1503, on which Section 1512 was based; in other obstruction-of-justice statutes; and in other federal criminal statutes more generally.
Andersen is the last argument scheduled on the Court's calendar for the 2004 Term, scheduled for Wednesday, April 27, and is the only case being heard that day. (ph)