United States v. Edlind

Decision Date10 April 2018
Docket NumberNo. 17-4194,17-4194
Citation887 F.3d 166
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Carolyn J. EDLIND, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED: David Leroy Parker, DAVID L. PARKER, PC, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Heather Lynn Carlton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Rick Mountcastle, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Shedd wrote the opinion in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Traxler joined.

SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge:

A jury convicted Carolyn Edlind of witness tampering, conspiracy to commit witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. Edlind appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions. Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found that Edlind corruptly persuaded the witness to alter his testimony, we affirm.

I.

In 2014, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Virginia indicted Felix Adriano Chujoy and his mother, Maria McTague, for human trafficking, money laundering, and other offenses. See United States v. Maria Rosalba Alvarado McTague et al. , No. 5:14-CR-055 (filed Dec. 4, 2014) (the Inca's Secret case). The charges arose from their operation of Inca's Secret, a Peruvian restaurant in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Before trial, Chujoy was released with several conditions, including the condition that he refrain from contacting any witnesses or potential witnesses in the Inca's Secret case. His mother was released into the custody of Gary and Carolyn Edlind, close family friends of Chujoy and McTague. The families were so close that Chujoy called Edlind "tia" or "aunt."

After Chujoy's arrest, the Edlinds and several of Chujoy's close friends, including Christina Kang, Michael Kwiatkowski, and Donald Smith, formed a support group for him. The group met for meals at the Edlinds' home, and for "Taco Tuesdays" at a local restaurant. None of the friends were overly familiar with Inca's Secret or its operation. On one occasion, however, Kwiatkowski had joined Chujoy in transporting several restaurant employees and Chujoy told Kwiatkowski that the workers were all "illegal." (S.J.A. 734). Kwiatkowski, however, thought Chujoy was "joking." (S.J.A. 734).

During this time, federal agents began receiving reports from witnesses in the Inca's Secret case that McTague and Chujoy had been contacting them. Cell phone records revealed calls from McTague but not Chujoy. Instead, the records showed multiple calls to the witnesses from Chujoy's friends' phones, including phones belonging to Edlind and Kwiatkowski. During interviews with Kwiatkowski and Edlind, the agents learned that Chujoy frequently borrowed their phones to make calls. In light of this new information, the grand jury entered a superseding indictment charging Chujoy and McTague with witness tampering.1

After the issuance of the superseding indictment, Chujoy was arrested and detained. The Edlinds continued to attend and organize Taco Tuesdays with Kang and Kwiatkowski, but the meetings became more sporadic. Edlind, in particular, worried for Chujoy and became paranoid that the Government was investigating his friends. During the dinners, the friends would discuss the case, Chujoy's strange sense of humor, and his use of other peoples' phones. Edlind would ask Kang and Kwiatkowski not to bring their phones to the restaurant or to sit on them in case the Government was listening in on their conversations. Both Edlinds would also ask if Kwiatkowski or Kang had been contacted by the Government.

On March 25, the Edlinds invited Kwiatkowski and Kang to their house for dessert. During this event, Edlind asked everyone to leave their cell phones outside and then proceeded to "bash[ ]" Chujoy while also telling everyone that, if contacted by federal agents, they should "tell them that ... we don't know anything because we don't know anything." (S.J.A. 741). Kwiatkowski found the statement "strange." (S.J.A. 742).

Meanwhile, Chujoy remained in pretrial detention. During his detention, he repeatedly called Edlind and Smith. Edlind visited nine times, and on other occasions was seen standing outside the jail blowing kisses to someone inside. Chujoy put Kwiatkowski on his visitor list and asked him to come, but Kwiatkowski did not do so. Chujoy also made calls, primarily to Smith and another friend, Yuri Jung, using another inmate's personal identification number, prodding them to get Kwiatkowski to visit.2

Finally, with the Inca's Secret trial only several weeks away, Chujoy sent a letter to Edlind on June 3, 2015:

I'm going to keep this very short in hopes that it reaches you by or before saturday. I met w[ith] my attorney yesterday [and] he read me Mike Kwiatkowski's interview w[ith] the feds. I'm pretty shocked by what it says, so I'm hoping that it is either a big misunderstanding or that the feds are twisting it around. The interview says that according to Mike, my mom was very intimidating, that I can't be trusted, and that I'm always lying and making up stories. It goes on into more specific stories and examples that made me laugh, as I realized that Mike really is as dumb as a door knob, as he obviously could not understand/differentiate when I was joking and when I was being serious. His entire testimony/interview reminded me of a big misunderstanding that we (Mike, Christina [Kang] & I) had over a joke, when I told Christina that he was mildly retarded.
Please make sure to meet with both of them so that Mike understands that much of the information he gave out is incorrect and could lead into me getting into a huge problem. Be nice to him about it, as I wouldn't want to offend him or have him take things personal. I understand that my jokes are sometimes stupid [and] between that [and] him not being able to tell when I was joking or not, his comments/interview are ludicrous.
I hope you get to meet w[ith] them ASAP, as clarifying all this is pretty crucial.
* * * *
P.S. He should probably also clarify that we didn't really start hanging out, until half way through 2014, as that would probably explain why we were always on two different pages [and] why he didn't really know much about me, or why he couldn't tell when I was joking.

(J.A. 281-82).

After receiving Chujoy's June 3 letter, Edlind visited him at the jail on June 6. Later that day, she sent a text to Kwiatkowski and Kang: "Very important we meet this week!!!!please contact me if you can't do Tuesday." (S.J.A. 1069). Kang said she preferred to talk over the phone, and Kwiatkowski texted the group that they "probably shouldn't be talking about" something that could not be discussed over text. (S.J.A. 1071). Edlind responded, "not on the phone you know why," (S.J.A. 1071), and "phones in the car will be fine like we have in the past," (S.J.A. 1072). She then texted, "you guys opt out I'll tell Felix don't worry about it I don't need to stress either." (S.J.A. 1073). Kang did opt out, but Kwiatkowski agreed to meet for Taco Tuesday at El Charro. Unbeknownst to Edlind, however, Kwiatkowski contacted government agents and wore a recording device for the dinner.

When Kwiatkowski arrived at El Charro, the Edlinds told him to sit on his phone before Edlind told him he could put it outside in her bicycle basket. Edlind admitted to Kwiatkowski that Chujoy had asked her to contact Kwiatkowski and "[t]ell him not to say anything, don't write anymore, do nothing." (J.A. 233). She also brought up the teasing incident referenced in Chujoy's letter, before asking "He told you back in November or something that he murdered somebody? ... He told you that and you believed it?" (J.A. 234-35). She then asked, "did [ICE] ask you ... about him murdering anybody" (J.A. 235), and referenced Chujoy's odd sense of humor.

When the three began discussing the human trafficking charges against Chujoy and McTague, Kwiatkowski mentioned that Chujoy was a manager at the restaurant. Edlind quickly corrected him, explaining, "[h]e isn't the manager," and that "[y]ou know when you go apply for a job and say managed a restaurant, and he used that." (J.A. 253). She followed up by explaining that she also volunteered to help at the restaurant in a similar capacity and thus also considered herself a manager there, a fact she had shared with the Government.

The three also discussed the earlier allegations of witness tampering in the Inca's Secret case, prompting Edlind to offer, "I think they trapped [McTague]," (J.A. 263) and "I think it was a setup," (J.A. 264). Throughout the dinner, Edlind also opined on the reputations of Chujoy and McTague as untruthful people, mentioning "[t]hey've been lying for so long that they can do that. It's an art form," and that the whole case against them was "a game, but also lying, they're good at it," (J.A. 262).

Turning to Kwiatkowski's upcoming testimony and subpoena, Edlind advised him, "[d]on't go into detail if you're not asked to" (J.A. 271). She further suggested that he not meet with the prosecutors to go over his testimony prior to trial, explaining, "[t]hey're just offering it to you like that's a gift. I don't think so. Waste more of my time." (J.A. 272-73). To that end, she told Kwiatkowski that she "cooperated with them. I didn't have to. We did," but that another friend, "did the same thing," but the Government "tricked her.... [t]hey ended up staying over an hour. She was so upset." (J.A. 273).

The Edlinds concluded the dinner by telling Kwiatkowski to obey the subpoena and appear at trial, and engaging in the following exchange:

Ms. Edlind : Now the lawyers haven't talked to you yet? You haven't had that time?
Kwiatkowski : No, no, no one has talked to me except for Homeland.
Ms. Edlind : That goes very easy. They said don't feel, if the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • United States v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 20, 2021
    ...... Cir. 2013) (adopting Eleventh Circuit's definition);. United States v. Watters , 717 F.3d 733, 735 (9th. Cir. 2013) (approving jury instruction defining. “corruptly” to mean “consciousness of. wrongdoing”); cf. United States v. Edlind , 887. F.3d 166, 173 n.3 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting in prosecution. under section 1512(c)(1) that the trial court had instructed. the jury that “it could convict only if [the defendant]. ‘acted knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific. intent to subvert or ......
  • Nunes v. Fusion GPS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • March 31, 2021
    ...(3) with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent the (4) testimony of that person in an official proceeding." United States v. Edlind , 887 F.3d 166, 172–73 (4th Cir. 2018). Lacking from the Second Amended Complaint are any facts that might permit a reasonable belief that Defendants had ......
  • United States v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 20, 2021
    ...735 (9th Cir. 2013) (approving jury instruction defining "corruptly" to mean "consciousness of wrongdoing"); cf. United States v. Edlind , 887 F.3d 166, 173 n.3 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting in prosecution under section 1512(c)(1) that the trial court had instructed the jury that "it could convic......
  • Cordero-Garcia v. Garland
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 15, 2022
    ......Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19-72779 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 11, 2022 San Francisco, ...Edlind , 887 F.3d 166, 173 (4th Cir. 2018) ("To convict [the defendant] under § 1512, the Government had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...1989) (delineating § 1503 into “three core elements”). Most circuits have adopted the three elements. See, e.g., United States v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166, 176 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Blair, 661 F.3d 755, 766 (4th Cir. 2011)); United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155, 168 (3d Cir......
  • Obstruction of justice
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...(delineating the “three core elements” of § 1503). Most circuits have adopted these three elements. See, e.g. , United States v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166, 176 (4th Cir. 2018); United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155, 168 (3d Cir. 2013); Richardson , 676 F.3d at 502; United States v. Erickson, 56......
  • Obstruction of Justice
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...1989) (delineating § 1503 into “three core elements”). Most circuits have adopted the three elements. See, e.g. , United States v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166, 176 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Blair, 661 F.3d 755, 766 (4th Cir. 2011)); United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155, 168 (3d Ci......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT