| Fowler v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided May 26, 2011 | |
| Full case name | Fowler v. United States |
| Citations | 563 U.S. 668 (more) |
| Holding | |
| When someone is charged of a killing under the federal witness-tampering statute, the state must prove a violation by showing there was a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Ginsburg |
Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when someone is charged of a killing under the federal witness-tampering statute, the state must prove a violation by showing there was a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer.[1][2]
Background
While preparing to rob a bank, Charles Andrew Fowler and others were discovered by a local police officer, whom Fowler killed. Fowler was convicted of violating the federal witness-tampering statute, which makes it a crime "to kill another person, with intent to... prevent the communication by any person to a [Federal] law enforcement officer" of "information relating to the... possible commission of a Federal offense." Rejecting Fowler's argument that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had killed the officer intending to prevent him from communicating with a federal officer, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a showing of a possible or potential communication to federal authorities was sufficient.[1]
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on May 26, 2011.[1]
Subsequent developments
References
- Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011).
- Burns, Amy (May 28, 2011). "Opinion analysis: Fowler v. United States". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved September 4, 2025.
External links
- Text of Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Internet Archive (docket files) Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.