Law for all: Defining obstruction of justice and its grounds

Image source: history.com

Obstruction of justice is a crime wherein an individual, or an entity obstructs prosecutors or law enforcement from doing their jobs. Basically, the offense is committed if a person prevents the course of justice from moving. What makes obstruction of justice such a big crime to commit is that it tends to waste valuable time and resources from prosecutors as well as a breach in confidence.


The most common form of obstruction of justice is basically lying. For example, a person arrested who makes false claims to mislead law enforcement can be charged with obstruction of justice if their statements are proven to be false. This is why arresting officers inform suspects they have the right to remain silent. If they mention anything that can obstruct the investigation, it will be used against them later on.


Other forms of obstruction of justice can be the falsification of documents, destroying or hiding evidence, interfering with an ongoing investigation, bribery or intimidation of witnesses, non-cooperation to an investigation, or any attempts to hinder or to stop an investigation can be classified as obstruction of justice.

Image source: abcnews.go.com

Notable cases of obstruction of justice include the case of former U.S. President Bill Clinton who was impeached in 1998 for obstruction of justice. In the case, Pres. Clinton lied about his relationship with former white house intern Monica Lewinsky in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.


In his more than three decades of practice, Booneville attorney Joey Langston has been renowned for many high-profile victories, including successfully representing Mississippi in negotiating collection of back taxes owed to the state by MCI/WorldCom, wherein a $100 million settlement and a $15 million office building donation by the company were reached. For more information about Atty. Langston and his work, visit this page.

Courtroom talk: The difference between direct and circumstantial evidence

Image source: dailymail.co.uk

In a court of law, evidence is used to prove the innocence or guilt of a defendant. Prosecution and defense both collect evidence to be used in the trial to convince a judge or a jury of one’s innocence or guilt. Evidence can be physical items such as camera footage, fingerprints, weapons, and so forth. Evidence can also be non-physical like statements of witnesses or a person’s character sketch. There are two types of evidence that can be presented in court. These are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Here are the differences between the two.


Direct evidence is based on observation of a fact or personal knowledge of a witness. For example, the witness saw the defendant pull out a gun and fired shots in the air. The crime of firing rounds in the air is within the actual experience of the witness. Traditionally, direct evidence is always linked to eyewitness testimony. But today, photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings are also considered direct evidence.

Image source: newsweek.com

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is a bit more complex. If direct evidence has a witness see the actual crime, circumstantial evidence has a witness seeing parts of the crime play out, but only infers key elements of the crime. Using the same example above, the witness sees the defendant pull out a gun but loses sight of them. The witness then hears gunshots fired seconds after losing sight of the defendant. Lastly, the witness sees the defendant once again running away from the scene. Circumstantial evidence can be crafted in a way to prove guilt if enough evidence is presented. However, this type of evidence can be disputed.


Joey Langston is a multi-awarded, high-profile trial attorney from Booneville, Mississippi. He is renowned for his high rate of verdicts in favor of his clients, including multi-million-dollar judgments and acquittals. For more on Atty. Langston and his work, visit this website.

What Makes For a Good Trial Attorney?

There are many traits that all lawyers must have, but trial attorneys must first and foremost display a competitive nature. Because trial attorneys are like surgeons of the law; they are highly motivated by a fear of losing or failure. This translates to true courage.

Image source: thepennyhoarder.com

Eloquence is but a bonus; preparation is more important. A good trial lawyer takes pains in acquiring a mastery of the facts for any case, conducting themselves convincingly because they treat facts as their own possessions.

When in court, the good trial attorney understands that they cannot control the witnesses, the jury, the judge, and the law in general. The important thing is to study the facts and rely on their discovery, clear and convincing presentation, and demeanor before the jury. In other words, they understand that the only thing they can control is their approach.

Self-control, diction, economy of language, and charisma are likewise important traits, yes. But keep in mind that these are not meant to be exhaustive. The trial attorney must possess solid knowledge of the rules of civil procedure and be able to anticipate the tactics of opponents. Because often the real skill in trial law is measured not so much in delivering punches as in knowing how to take a punch and get back up.

Image source: gailenlaw.com

Multi-awarded trial lawyer Joey Langston is also known in Booneville and Prentiss County for his philanthropic endeavors, including his work with the youth and underprivileged children through The Langston Fund. For more legalese tips and insights, visit this link.