Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Heytens finds the lower court improperly did not provide a sufficient explanation of its rationale for applying an obstruction of justice enhancement. The defendant is accused of trading gunshots with another man late at night. When police arrived on the scene, they found the defendant, who claimed not to be a victim, rather than one of the two men firing shots. The defendant not sharing that he had also fired shots does not count as concealment to obstruct justice. Vacated.
To read this case, start your 14-day free trial.
Request a free trial account to get access to more case data, documents, and features.
To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.