3 ms·
> Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't
by waiwai933 3y ago
> Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage
The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct.
> Substantial interference with administration of justice
That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."
I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this.
> Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation
Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).
- tptacek 3y agoYeah, you're probably right. The prosecutor press release makes a point of talking about his experience as a pilot and a skydiver, so "special skills" might apply. But the big-ticket accelerator is (b)(1)(A), and I think you're right that it can't apply to him exfiltrating and cutting up his own airplane.
- waiwai933 3y agoTurns out yes to the extensive planning enhancement, as well as an aggravated role enhancement. But no to the harm/substantial interference/special skills enhancements. Details in uncle/aunt comment (is that a term?) now that I've found the plea agreement.
- tptacek 3y agoNice catch! I tried to find this on PACER earlier but the case lookup didn't bring anything up on "TREVOR JACOB".
- waiwai933 3y agoThanks! I found it in the California Central District PACER instance by searching for his full name (both the court and name given in the DoJ press release) - I suspect the national index syncs only so often with the individual PACER instances and it just hasn't got this case yet.