United States v. William J. Cintolo

This case deals with the manner in which one member of the criminal defense bar chose, in his own sense, to read and to act upon the bitter letter of the law. In the bargain, the case presents important questions concerning the relation of an attorney to the fabric of federal law which Congress has woven to prevent obstruction of justice.

In December 1984, a grand jury sitting in the District of Massachusetts returned an indictment against William J. Cintolo, a practicing criminal defense attorney, charging him with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1503, and two substantive counts of obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503. After a lengthy trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on the conspiracy count, but not guilty on the substantive obstruction counts. Cintolo was thereafter sentenced to a prison term, the execution of which was stayed pending appeal. We affirm.

When the sufficiency of the proof is challenged on postconviction appeal in a criminal case, we necessarily view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Gl asser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Medina, 761 F.2d 12, 16 n. 3 (1st Cir.1985); United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 384 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 131, 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); United States v. Davis, 623 F.2d 188, 195 (1st Cir.1980). Drawing all legitimate inferences which tend to support the government’s case, United States v. Patterson, 644 F.2d 890, 893 (1st Cir.1981), and resolving any conflicts in the evidence against the appellant, United States v. DeLucca, 630 F.2d 294, 300 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 983, 101 S.Ct. 1520, 67 L.Ed.2d 819 (1981), our task is to determine whether “the evidence in its totality, taken in the light most flattering to the government, together with all legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom, [are enough that] a rational trier of the facts could have found the appellant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.” Tierney, 760 F.2d at 384. See also United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1984); Dirring v. United States, 328 F.2d 512, 515 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1003, 84 S.Ct. 1939, 12 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1964). With that standard in mind, we proceed to survey the evidence adduced in this case.

I.

Cintolo’s indictment and ultimate conviction grew out of the judicially sanctioned electronic surveillance of an apartment at 98 Prince Street in Boston’s North End. These premises were used by Gennaro An *984 giulo and his associates 1 as a headquarters and office for the operation of illegal gambling and loansharking businesses. “Loansharking” is a term of criminal art which may roughly be defined as the unlawful lending of money at usurious rates of interest, repayment being encouraged by the employment (or threatened employment) of unorthodox collection measures, involving, inter alia, the breaking of bones.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) monitored the conversations which took place on the premises from January 19 to May 3, 1981. The surveillance was conducted primarily by means of hidden microphones clandestinely emplaced within the apartment. These devices recorded conversations between Angiulo and his confederates, including Cintolo. In addition, a concealed exterior camera surreptitiously photographed persons entering and leaving the headquarters.

What this intensive scrutiny revealed visa-vis the appellant can usefully be summarized by reference to the true bill which the grand jury returned. The indictment charged that Cintolo conspired with Angiulo and others to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1503. 2 The gravamen of the accusation was that Cintolo did “corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice” by befouling the proceedings of a federal grand jury investigating the criminal activities of the Angiulo gang. According to the indictment, Cintolo set out to accomplish this nefarious end through the use of his position as attorney of record for Walter LaFreniere, a witness before the grand jury, to acquire information about the ongoing investigation for Angiulo’s benefit. The indictment further charged Cintolo with knowingly assisting Angiulo in his efforts to inhibit LaFreniere, after the latter had been granted immunity, from testifying truthfully before the grand jury, or from cooperating in any way with the investigation.

Tape recordings played for the jury at Cintolo’s trial 3 established that LaFreniere and his father-in-law, Louis Venios, possessed damaging information linking various members of Angiulo’s organization to illegal gambling and loansharking activities. Among other things, the evidence disclosed that both Venios and LaFreniere had been extended substantial credit to cover unpaid gambling debts, and that each had been subjected to exacting pressure from various of Angiulo’s minions to remit the overdue sums. When subpoenas issued to Venios and LaFreniere indicating that the grand jury was investigating possible violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 892-94 (making, financing, and collecting extortionate extensions of credit), Angiulo recognized the legal peril which faced him and his confreres. Notwithstanding that on March 12, 1981, after first being interviewed by FBI agent Quinn, LaFreniere appeared before the grand jury and refused to testify on fifth amendment grounds, Angiulo remonstrated with his brother, Donato:

Remember, they’re not sayin’ this or this or that. They’re saying, “Angiulo” ... “Angiulo.” It might be me, you, him, him, and him, too. Nobody knows. Under RICO, no matter who ... we are, if *985 we’re together, they’ll get every ... one of us.

* * # * * *

We’ve been sleepin’____ As soon as that • • • guy got that ... summons, shoulda got a kid like Cintolo and said, “You hire a ... detective and tell him to stand at that grand jury. I want to know everybody that goes in there.”

Following extended discussions among Angiulo and his cohorts, assessing the extent of LaFreniere’s knowledge and speculating on the possible foci of the grand jury’s investigation, Donato Angiulo sent LaFreniere to meet with the appellant. Shortly thereafter, the lawyer assembled with Gennaro Angiulo and others — not including LaFreniere — to discuss the sweep of the grand jury inquiry and Cintolo’s newfound “client.” At this session, Angiulo told Cintolo that “about three and a half, four weeks ago, ... these guys should have gotten you and told you what I wanted.” Angiulo explained that LaFreniere had been delivering payments to him on behalf of Venios, and that LaFreniere’s name appeared on a “cuff sheet,” i.e., a written list kept to show amounts of borrowings and identities of borrowers. (The cuff sheet in question related to an illegal “barbooth game” operated by Angiulo’s son, Jason.)

Angiulo then told Cintolo the questions which had been propounded to Venios before the grand jury. These questions concerned, inter alia, whether Venios had ever “okay[ed] Walter LaFreniere for money with someone or anyone on the shy-lock.” (In the vernacular, “shylock” and “loanshark” are roughly synonymous terms.) Venios’s discretion and loyalty had been tested over time, and Angiulo appeared to have considerable confidence in him. Yet, Angiulo was plainly apprehensive over the family’s potential exposure should LaFreniere fail to “stand up,” i.e., to go to jail rather than to testify truthfully before the grand jury. Angiulo mused, “why is this worrying me? This kid owes money on the shark____ [Hje’s gotta be protected. This kid should never have gone to the grand jury by himself.”

The appellant immediately reassured Angiulo. Cintolo told him that he had already “got out of” LaFreniere a list of the questions asked both in the FBI interview and in the grand jury. Cintolo then recounted these questions and LaFreniere’s responses thereto for Angiulo’s benefit. The conversation concluded with Angiulo instructing the appellant to call LaFreniere in and size him up. Angiulo told Cintolo: “I got a decision to make. I want to have it all in front of me. Louis I can believe. This kid? Double talks.”

On March 19, 1981, Wendy Collins, a federal prosecutor, notified LaFreniere to report to the grand jury the following Thursday. That evening, Cintolo spoke with Angiulo:

Angiulo: You going to explain to him that you feel that he’s gonna get immunity? There’s no other way out of it, is there? Huh?

Cintolo: No. I, I’ll explain it to him. Figured somebody else might want to talk to him first____

Angiulo: His father-in-law says already that as far as this kid is concerned, one thing you can say he’s a ... man. If he’s got time to do, he’ll do it. But I don’t think they figure on immunity. You understand? They’re not that ... smart. Did we find out anything about this grand jury?

Cintolo: Nothing yet.

Angiulo: I would say you call him in, have a good talk, and give me a reaction.

Cintolo: Yeah.

Angiulo: So that this kid understands that he might just go and do eighteen ... months.

Later that evening, Angiulo conferred with two of his henchmen, Richard Gambale and Peter “Doc” Limone, soliciting their views as to whether LaFreniere would “stand up.” Apparently uneasy at what he heard, Angiulo ordered them to kill LaFreniere:

Tell him to take a ride, Okay? Went somewhere, the kid will just say to you, get out of the car and you stomp him. *986 Bing! You hit him in the ... head and leave him____ Meet him tonight____ Just hit him in the ... head and stab him, okay. The jeopardy is just a little too much for me.

FBI agents monitoring the electronic surveillance equipment overheard Angiulo hand down this death sentence. They moved immediately to warn the intended victim. LaFreniere acknowledged that he had been contacted and was scheduled to meet with “someone” later that day. He refused to disclose the identity of the person who had made the overture, but Gambale subsequently revealed himself to the government’s electronic ear as the mystery caller, informing Angiulo that LaFreniere had resisted his suggestion that they meet “for a drink.”

On March 20, Angiulo was told that LaFreniere had been attempting to reach Cintolo. Angiulo advised the lawyer that LaFreniere had been tipped about the “contract” which had been placed on his life:

[T]he Feds called him and said to him, “we got an informant in the North End. He just informed us that you have been placed on the hit list down there____” Words to that effect.

Cintolo's only response to this grisly piece of news was to mention calmly that he had instructed LaFreniere to talk with no one, and to refer all calls to him. Angiulo continued:

They, supposedly, they told him, “look, what we’re telling you, don’t repeat it, ‘cause you’ll blow the cover of the guy we got down there talking to these people who knows what it’s all about.” Very, very interesting. Because, nowhere along the line did anyone talk about handling it. More important than that, if someone did talk about it, though ... no way would they talk where it would be, aah, susceptible to anyone excepting individuals that would be interested in it to begin with.

This particular conversation concluded with Angiulo instructing Cintolo to meet with LaFreniere again and “to evaluate [the situation] very carefully.”

There followed a series of discussions at the apartment in which Angiulo voiced grave (and mounting) concern over his organization’s vulnerability vis-a-vis LaFreniere. The recurring theme of each conversation, significantly, was that LaFreniere be coerced into “standing up” — to serve an eighteen month sentence for contempt— rather than to accept immunity gracefully and testify freely before the grand jury. Angiulo ordered that pressure of divers kinds be brought to bear. At one juncture, he suggested that LaFreniere be told:

Hey you, you answer these ... questions you’re gonna get yourself in trouble, you’re gonna get everybody in trouble. Do yourself a ... favor____ Go to the can until we find out a little more about this ... thing.

At another point, Angiulo instructed William “Skinny” Kazonis, another crony, that he was not to allow LaFreniere to tell the truth under any circumstances:

He’s gotta be taken out and told ... he’s not answering____ First, we’re gonna try to find out, to know a little more than what they found. Second, it’s your ... responsibility to make sure this kid keeps his ... mouth shut____

Much the same sentiments were communicated to Venios:

Angiulo: He’s got immunity.

Venios: Yah.

Angiulo: In plain English, he either answers or he’s going to jail.

Venios: ____to jail, yah.

Angiulo: We’re all set up for him?

Venios: Yah.

During this same meeting, Angiulo explained that his own son, Jason, was in an equivalent position. “He can answer until they ask him the $64 question, which is the question that will get somebody in trouble. After that, just pack it in and go to the can.” Angiulo repeatedly reminded Venios of the jeopardy which any cooperation by LaFreniere with the grand jury would pose, and for good measure added a thinly-veiled threat:

If this kid has got the smarts, I’m gonna tell him to go in and answer some of these questions. Then Billy will defend *987 him for perjury. What ... is the difference whether he does eighteen for the grand jury or he gets three years for perjury?

Angiulo later told the appellant of Venios’s continued assurances that LaFreniere would “stand up.” According to Angiulo, Venios had been ordered to remind his son-in-law that this was no avuncular request, but a command from the organization: “You got to tell this kid that we said it, not you. Us. No guy will go to the can here for any reason.” So, Angiulo indicated, Cintolo’s “client” fully appreciated the personal risk he would run by cooperating with the grand jury.

In the course of the conversation, Angiulo remarked to Kazonis, “Drink up, Skinny, you might go away tomorrow ... obstructing justice. Eight, Billy?” The following exchange then took place:

Cintolo: ____ And I went over that with him very, very carefully. That the maximum you can do is eighteen months or the life of the grand jury, whichever is shorter.

Unknown Male: Yeah.

Angiulo: Coming from you.

Cintolo: And then he said to me, “how long does the grand jury sit?” I said, “the grand jury sits for thirty-six months”’

Angiulo: Well he’s thick, he doesn’t understand about thirty-six months. But you gotta understand, coming from you that’s the story. Coming from him, that’s saying “Listen I was there, ..., and no matter where you go, might take, might take a week, two weeks, three weeks to get to you, but we’ll get to ya.” Do you understand? Do you understand what I’m talking about? The difference.

Kazonis: Well I convinced him already, for tomorrow forget about____

Angiulo: In fact, what he wanted to do was, when he got through with Skinny, he wanted to just go home and get his ... underwear and go, go, go away.

On March 26, in Cintolo’s absence, Angiulo described how LaFreniere had reacted to Kazonis’s importunings:

“The lawyer told me I had to go do thirty-six months. I told my wife, I gotta go away for three years. Crazy, my lawyer expects that. Don’t tell me,” he says, “[the] lawyer talked to me; he told me to go away for thirty-six months.” (Emphasis supplied).

On March 31, the appellant met briefly with Angiulo to plot strategy. By this time, it was obvious that Jason — who had been subpoenaed by the grand jury — was a target of the investigation and would not be offered immunity. Cintolo was, according to the plan which he and Angiulo had mapped out, to represent Jason as well as LaFreniere. The lawyer suggested that he could “have [Jason] plead the fifth.” To this, Angiulo responded:

Not yet, we shouldn’t. No, sir. We didn’t learn nothing. You understand, I want the questions specifically, and somewhere along the line he’ll be indoctrinated by me, if you wanna call it that.

When Cintolo said that he would “like to try to appeal” any court order disqualifying him from dual representation of both of these “clients,” Angiulo rejoined: “Why would you like to do anything? We are here only to discuss all of the ultimate measures to tell them to go [perform an anatomically unlikely act upon] themselves.”

On April 1, LaFreniere received immunity, thereby stripping him of the fifth amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination. Nothing daunted, Cintolo continued to participate in discussions with Angiulo and his subordinates in which the anticipated commission of contempt before the grand jury was frankly acknowledged as an objective. At one point Cintolo remarked, “they’ve got to figure if they can isolate [LaFreniere] in a sense ... if they can pull him away from me,— Okay. If they can pull him away from me, then maybe they get something out of him. Whether he’s gonna voluntarily do it, or just by sheer ignorance he’s gonna blurt it out. I think that’s what they want.” (Emphasis supplied). Moments later, Cintolo added:

*988 I talked to him____to evaluate what he’s saying to me — in fact, it was like I do with everybody: instill confidence in them, you know. I kept telling him, “I might not be able to help you out, but I can tell ya, I’ll fight like a son of a____” To get him into a confident situation, making him think that we can do what we’re saying we can do, and all of a sudden smack, he’s a ... goner. (Emphasis supplied). 4

Discussions regarding the grand jury investigation continued throughout the month of April. The appellant was a regular participant. In one conversation, the group attempted to identify an individual whom they had spotted and believed to be an informant. In response to a query by Cintolo, Angiulo gave the following chilling command: “I don’t want to know about this guy no more. I want [Kazonis] to go see him____ We’ll ... kill him once and for all.”

On April 23, LaFreniere appeared before the grand jury and, reading a statement prepared for him by Cintolo, refused to testify. Notwithstanding the immunity which had been conferred, the refusal was predicated on fifth amendment grounds. At a hearing on the government’s ensuing motion to compel, the duty judge dismissed Cintolo’s argument that the immunity bestowed upon LaFreniere was somehow inadequate as “clearly frivolous.” 5 Upon leaving court, the appellant went directly to 98 Prince Street. Angiulo greeted him with the question, “Is he in jail, just say yes or no?” Cintolo responded, “Not yet.” The two men then dissected what had transpired at the grand jury in minute detail. At one point, the appellant informed Angiulo that the grand jury had queried LaFreniere about the contract on his life, volunteering that “I think they know about Richie [Gambale] and Peter [Limone].” When Cintolo mentioned that LaFreniere had already admitted having received an “invitation” to “meet,” Angiulo remarked that Gambale had indeed ventured such an initiative. “The dirty part of this, there’s no fiction here. They don’t have to fictionalize. He’ll give them the pieces. They’ll put the puzzle together.” Then, Cintolo adverted to LaFreniere’s professed desire to answer a few of the grand jury’s questions. The following exchange took place:

Angiulo: That’s why I think it’s starting to enter his mind, Billy. I don’t like the answers.

Cintolo: Maybe a couple of times, couple of ... “Why couldn’t I answer these questions?”

Angiulo: Your answer to him is gonna be, when he says that to you, “Hey Walter, let me tell you something, huh: don’t ever come back to haunt me. With one of these questions, you’re gonna commit perjury because instead of doing eighteen months you gonna ... go for five years.” But how you give it back you better be very ... careful____ You hear me: very important, Billy, you gotta feel him out.

On June 2, 1982, LaFreniere was held in contempt in federal district court and was sentenced to an eighteen month term of incarceration, which he served in full. Cin *989 tolo represented him throughout the entire period of his immurement. He was disqualified by court order, however, from continuing to appear for Jason Angiulo.

At his own trial, appellant testified that, although he was aware of Angiulo’s involvement in illegal businesses, he had not acted with the intent corruptly to obstruct or impede justice while representing LaFreniere. To the contrary, he claimed to have been cooperating — or pretending to cooperate — with Angiulo solely to enhance his ability to counsel his true client (LaFreniere). The jury obviously disbelieved these assertions and drew a different set of inferences.

II.

From the facts established at trial, a sampling of which we have set out above, we find overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy among Angiulo and his associates to pressure LaFreniere — at all costs and by the nearest means — so as to prevent his testifying before the grand jury; in short, a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most hospitable to the government, we have no difficulty recognizing that the defendant lent his informed assistance to this conspiracy. Indeed, Cintolo’s counsel conceded as much at oral argument of this appeal, when he stated:

Cintolo knew that Gennaro Angiulo was doing his level best to influence Walter LaFreniere through other people, including Walter LaFreniere’s father-in-law, Louis Venios, to persuade Walter LaFreniere to “stand up” — in the vernacular, to refuse to testify — even though immunized, and to do an eighteen month sentence for contempt. There is no question that the evidence makes out a conspiracy, of which Gennaro Angiulo was at the head, to influence LaFreniere. And there is no question that Cintolo, knowing that, continued to represent LaFreniere ... partly with a purpose to gain time and partly with a purpose to obtain information. Secondly, he passed on such information as he did have to the Angiulos — as, for example, what questions were being asked [in the grand jury]. Indeed, most everything he did played into the hands of Gennaro Angiulo.

Cintolo argues, however, that appearances are deceiving in this case; that his authentic motive in pursuing this perilous course of conduct was to obtain information from Angiulo that would assist him in representing the interests of LaFreniere. He portrays himself as a double agent of sorts, using the ringleader of the mob as the ringleader was attempting to manipulate him. While admitting that his behavior conferred benefits on Angiulo and on the hoped-for conspiracy of silence, the appellant maintains that those rewards were “incidental” to his obligation to represent LaFreniere as he thought best. Inasmuch as he did not intend to obstruct justice, the thesis runs, he cannot be guilty of conspiring to commit the substantive offense.

The short answer to this plaint is that the jurors, armed with considerable circumstantial evidence to support their assessment of the situation, deemed these protestations to be apocryphal. The slightly longer — but no less damning — answer is that the self-serving gloss which appellant thus places on the evidence manifestly misapprehends both the jury’s factfinding function and our role in the review of the verdict. The jury was reasonably entitled to disbelieve Cintolo’s testimony regarding his motives and to credit the (entirely plausible) contrary interpretation urged by the government. E.g., United States v. Cisneros, 448 F.2d 298, 305 (9th Cir.1971) (“A trier of fact is not compelled to accept and believe the self serving stories of vitally interested defendants. Their evidence may not only be disbelieved, but from the totality of the circumstances, including the manner in which they testify, a contrary conclusion may be properly drawn.”). Accord United States v. Machado, 804 F.2d 1537, 1549 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Allen, 797 F.2d 1395, 1399 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 196, 93 L.Ed.2d 128 (1986); United States v. Robinson, 774 F.2d 261, 278-79 (8th Cir.1985). Given that appellate oversight of this con *990 viction must presume that the jury bought what the prosecution was selling, and recognizing that, in order to convict, the evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we find adequate record evidence to sustain the conclusion that Cintolo knowingly and intentionally furthered the corrupt ends which Angiulo and his companions sought to achieve. Indeed, the evidence makes abundantly clear the sentient, purposeful participation by Cintolo in the scheme to envelop LaFreniere in pressure and intimidation so as to forestall any cooperation on his part with the grand jury. The fact that this participation was clothed, at least in part, in the mantle of superficially “professional” conduct does not exonerate the lawyer from culpability.

We understand the defendant’s argument that all of his conduct in the course of representing LaFreniere — meeting with Angiulo and his crew, shuttling information from the grand jury investigation to them, urging LaFreniere to invoke the fifth amendment privilege long after immunity had dissipated it — was performed with LaFreniere’s consent. But, even were we inclined to credit the claim that LaFreniere voluntarily acceded to actions by Cintolo aimed at sending him to jail in order to protect the Angiulo clan, no effective defense avails to Cintolo as a result. In any realistic light, the most authentic victim of Cintolo’s behavior was not his nominal client, but the due administration of justice. When federal law was violated, LaFreniere was powerless to legitimate the infraction by consenting to the commission of a crime.

This notwithstanding, appellant and the amici beseech us to announce an unprecedented rule of law designed, they contend, to insulate lawyers from encroachments on the “zealous representation” of clients accused of crime. So long as an attorney tenders a facially legitimate explanation for conduct performed in the course of his defense of a client, they urge, a factfinder must evaluate the behavior on that basis. In constructing this sort of paradigm, the lawyer’s word alone creates what amounts to an irrebuttable presumption which debars the jury — despite the existence of mounds of circumstantial evidence — from drawing contradictory inferences as to the attorney’s motives or intent. Put another way, if defense counsel’s actions of and by themselves do not amount to a crime, then a factfinder may not criminalize the conduct on the basis of conclusions reached, no matter how reasonably, about why the actions were performed. Hidden motivations, howsoever corrupt, remain forever hidden in a world where veniremen are not allowed to peer beneath the surface of things.

We find no support in precedent, principle, or policy for such an anti-lapsarian rule, and decline to cleave so deep a chasm in the criminal law for the exclusive benefit of attorneys who knowingly involve themselves in the corruption of their clients. As important a role as defense counsel serve — and we do not minimize its importance one whit — the acceptance of a retainer by a lawyer in a criminal case cannot become functionally equivalent to the lawyer’s acceptance of a roving commission to flout the criminal law with impunity. A criminal lawyer has no license to act as a lawyer-criminal.

The omnibus clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1503 makes it a felony to “corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede ... the due administration of justice.” We have previously held that “[a]n effort to alter the testimony of a witness for corrupt purposes is plainly an endeavor to impede the due administration of justice.” United States v. Tedesco, 635 F.2d 902, 907 (1st Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 3112, 69 L.Ed.2d 974 (1981). It is altogether clear that interference with a grand jury investigation fits snugly within the contemplation of § 1503. E.g., United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1337 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834, 99 S.Ct. 116, 58 L.Ed.2d 130 (1978); United States v. Walasek, 527 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir.1975); United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 366 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 777, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976); United States v. Hubbard, 474 F.Supp. 64, 77 (D.D.C.1979). It is equally clear, from *991 both the plain meaning of the statutory language and the caselaw interpreting it, that § 1503 criminalizes conduct which obstructs or impedes the due administration of justice, provided such conduct is undertaken with a corrupt or improper purpose.

We have held before, and reaffirm now, that “[i]f reasonable jurors could conclude, from the circumstances of the conversation[s], that the defendant had sought, however cleverly and with whatever cloaking of purpose, to influence improperly a [witness], the offense was complete.” Tedesco, 635 F.2d at 907 (quoting United States v. Lazzerini, 611 F.2d 940, 941 (1st Cir.1979)). See also United States v. Lazzerini, 611 F.2d 940, 941 (1st Cir. 1979) (quoting United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir.1975)). Correct application of § 1503 thus requires, in a very real sense, that the factfinder discern — by direct evidence or from inference — the motive which led an individual to perform particular actions. As Justice Holmes once aptly observed, “[i]ntent may make an otherwise innocent act criminal, if it is a step in a plot.” Badders v. United States, 240 U.S. 391, 394, 36 S.Ct. 367, 368, 60 L.Ed. 706 (1916). The appellant’s suggestion that the jury be precluded, as a matter of law, from drawing its own (reasonable) conclusions as to why any defendant — or, more narrowly put, a lawyer-defendant — committed acts not unlawful in and of themselves would do enormous violence to the statute and play unwarranted havoc with its enforcement.

We decline the invitation to rewrite the obstruction statute in such a sweeping fashion. Adoption of the rule which the appellant and the amici urge upon us would effectively divest the jury of the critical factfinding role which Congress, in the enactment of § 1503, specifically entrusted to it. Professors LaFave and Scott accurately note that “there are a number of instances in which ... inquiry into why an act was committed is crucial in determining whether or not the defendant has committed a given crime.” W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 204 (1972). We find such an inquiry to be appropriate, indeed statutorily required, in the precincts patrolled by 18 U.S.C. § 1503. 6

Once it is conceded that the existence vel non of intent under § 1503 is a question of fact for the jury, it remains to define the parameters of behavior that can fairly be labelled as “corrupt,” ergo, criminal under the statute. General definitions tend to be circular. It has been said, for instance, that “[t]he term ‘corruptly’ is the specific intent of the crime.” United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460, 1465 (11th Cir.1985). Yet, the term is admittedly susceptible to different meanings in different contexts. See United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 642 n. 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977). Courts have tended to interpret the requirement broadly, holding that it applies to the ends of an actor’s conduct rather than merely the means. E.g., United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d at 1334-35 (“the omnibus clause aims at obstruction of justice itself, regardless of the means used”), and cases cited therein. Thus, any act by any party — whether lawful or unlawful on its face — may abridge § 1503 if performed with a corrupt motive.

Our sister circuits have spoken to this subject with a single voice. “Any corrupt endeavor whatsoever, to ‘influence, intimidate or impede any ... witness, ... ’ whether successful or not, is proscribed by the obstruction of justice statute.” Catri *992 no v. United, States, 176 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir.1949) (footnote omitted). Accord Falk v. United States, 370 F.2d 472, 476 (9th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 926, 87 S.Ct. 2044, 18 L.Ed.2d 982 (1967). “The statute reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.” United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984). See also United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d at 1335 (similar); Samples v. United States, 121 F.2d 263, 266 (5th Cir.) (§ 1503 is “broad enough to cover any act, committed corruptly, in an endeavor to impede or obstruct the due administration of justice.”), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 662, 62 S.Ct. 129, 86 L.Ed. 530 (1941). These formulations sound a common theme: they uniformly signal that means, though lawful in themselves, can cross the line of illegality if (i) employed with a corrupt motive, (ii) to hinder the due administration of justice, so long as (iii) the means have the capacity to obstruct.

The appellant and the amici pay lip service to this principle, but maintain that different considerations come into play where criminal defense lawyers are concerned. In those purlieus, they assert, a corrupt motive may not be found in conduct which is, itself, not independently illegal. We regard this argument as being in conflict with persuasive caselaw, and as wrongheaded from the standpoint of sound public policy.

In Cole v. United States, 329 F.2d 437 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 1630, 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964), the court affirmed the § 1503 conviction of an individual who had pressed a grand jury witness to stand mute by invocation of his fifth amendment prerogative. The defendant’s motive, the prosecution contended, was to protect both himself and a close friend from the slings and arrows of a pending grand jury investigation. The Ninth Circuit noted that: “the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is an integral part of the due administration of justice, designed to do and further justice, and to the exercise of which there is an absolute right in every witness.” Id. at 443. Nevertheless, while “[a] witness violates no duty to claim it, ... one who bribes, coerces, forces or threatens a witness to claim it, or advises with corrupt motive the witness to take it, can and does himself obstruct or influence the due administration of justice.” Id.

Cole, to be sure, did not involve a lawyer-client relationship. Yet the case explicitly suggested that an attorney who corruptly advised a client to wind the toga of the fifth amendment about him could well be subject to obstruction of justice liability notwithstanding any “privilege” he might claim to have in rendering such advice. Id. at 440 (dictum). After a