Question

Kathryn Erickson was the general manager of theUintah Special Services District (USSD), an entitycreated to use federal-mineral-lease revenues for roadprojects. She, along with her secretary, CherylMcCurdy, administered the USSD from a smalloffice in Vernal, Utah. Ms. Erickson’s authority waslimited and she was not permitted to enter into ormodify contracts for or to expend more than $1,000of USSD funds, without board approval.Mitchell Construction was a major contractorfor USSD. In 1998, USSD awarded Mitchell Con-struction a contract to haul gravel from a site calledHamaker Bottoms and another contract to carry outsmall asphalt-paving projects. Both contracts were tobe completed within the 1998 construction year.During 1999 and 2000 Mitchell Constructioncontinued to perform work on the projects coveredby its 1998 contracts with USSD, despite theirexpiration. It submitted invoices to USSD and waspaid for this work.In June 1999 a federal grand jury began toinvestigate contracting irregularities at USSD and theUintah County Road Department and issued asub-poena duces tecumto USSD requesting copies of“project contracts, invoices”between USSD andcontractors.While the office was preparing the response forthe grand jury subpoena, Ms. McCurdy saw Ms.Erickson prepare a handwritten change order for theHamaker Bottoms contract and saw Ms. Ericksonand Gilman N. Mitchell both sign it. The changeorder, which was backdated to January 13, 1999,extended the contract through December 31, 2000.Ms. McCurdy later discovered that two otherchange orders had been created and backdated. Shespent a day copying documents for the grand juryand recording, on a handwritten list, all of thedocuments that she had copied. However, she leftMs. Erickson in the office while she was working onthe list in order to go home for dinner. Ms. Ericksoncalled her and told her not to come back because allthe copying was done. Later, Ms. McCurdy foundon Ms. Erickson’s desk a photocopy of the grandjury document list and saw that two entries not inher handwriting had been added. These entries werefor change orders for contracts between MitchellConstruction and USSD. Ms. McCurdy reported thechange to the government.Ms. Erickson and Mr. Mitchell were eachindicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court forthe District of Utah on three counts of obstruction ofjustice by knowingly falsifying a document with theknowledge and intent that the grand jury would relyon it. Are both the elements of mental intent (scien-ter) and action present for criminal convictions here?[U.S. v. Erickson, 561 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir.)]

Answer 1

The crime charged and torts alleged for:

• Falsifying the documents
• Creating a backdated document with an intention to cover up the fault of not renewing the contracts at a specified time.
• Doing a transaction and making payment without any legal agreement between the firms.
• Entering into a transaction more than the approval limit of 1000 UDS
• Attempting to change the documents and creating copies of the same.

Yes, both the elements of mental intent (scien-ter) and action present for criminal convictions here. It is referred to as fraud which is a criminal act. When an individual intentionally involved in the deception for personal gain or to defame someone other is considered as an act of fraud.

As the answer framed is accurate, correct, according to the case given and best in my knowledge.

if you find this answer helpful, kindly like the answer.