In the case of Charles Andrew Fowler, aka Man, Petitioner v. United States (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting a federal statute that makes it a crime to kill or attempt to kill "a person engaged in the performance of official duties" if done with intent to prevent communication about a possible federal offense to any law enforcement officer. The defendant, Fowler, had been convicted under this statute for killing a local police officer while planning an armed robbery - even though there was no evidence he knew his victim could communicate with federal officers specifically. The Supreme Court overturned Fowler's conviction on appeal because it found that prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt not just that their victim might have transferred information about their crimes to some law enforcement officer but also that such transfer would have been made specifically to federal authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Charles Andrew Fowler v. United States, Justice Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C §1512(a)(1)(C) was too narrow and not in line with Congress' intent when drafting the law. He contended that a person should be found guilty under this statute if they kill another person with an intent to prevent communication about a possible crime to any federal officer or judge, regardless of whether there is certainty that such communication would have taken place. The justice believed it was enough for the defendant to believe there was a reasonable likelihood their actions could affect potential communications with federal officials. In his view, requiring proof beyond this threshold unnecessarily complicated prosecutions and went against congressional objectives.