U.S. v. Syring
Decision Date | 19 November 2007 |
Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 07-204 (CKK). |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Patrick SYRING, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
David Schertler, Schertler & Onorato, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defendant.
On October 12, 2007 Defendant, Patrick Syring, filed a Motion to Dismiss the two-count Indictment in this case based upon the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as well as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2). Defendant argues that the Indictment violates his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by attempting to criminalize protected speech, and also violates his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. For the same reasons, Defendant argues that the statutes under which he has been charged, 18 U.S.C. §§ 245(b)(2)(C) and 375(c), are unconstitutional as applied to his conduct. The Government filed an Amended Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2007,1 and Defendant filed his Reply Memorandum on November 9, 2007.2 Upon a searching review of the filings currently before the Court, as well as the relevant statutes and case law, the Court shall DENY Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.
Defendant Syring was indicted on August 15, 2007 on two charges, both related to alleged threats. The Indictment alleges that between July 17 and July 29, 2006, Defendant Syring sent three voice mail messages and four e-mail messages to employees of the Arab American Institute ("AAI"), a non-profit organization that represents the interests of Arab Americans in the United States. Indict. ¶¶ 1-2. At all times relevant to the Indictment, AAI was located in Washington, D.C. and Defendant Syring lived in Arlington, Virginia. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3. The Indictment specifically describes the following alleged communications:
• A voice mail recorded on AAI's main telephone line at 11:17 p.m. on July 17, 2006, which stated: Id. ¶ 4.
• An e-mail sent to the addresses of Dr. James Zogby and Natasha Tynes at the AAI office at 11:21 p.m. on July 17, 2006, which stated: 3 Id. ¶ 5.
• A voice mail recorded on the telephone extension of Valerie Smith at the AAI office on July 18 or July 19, 2006, which stated: Id. ¶ 6.
• An e-mail sent to the e-mail address of Valerie Smith at the AAI office at 12:32 a.m. on July 19, 2006, which stated: Id. ¶ 7.
• An e-mail sent to the e-mail address of Rebecca Abou-Chedid at the AAI office at 12:35 a.m. on July 19, 2006, which stated: Id. ¶ 8.
• A voice mail recorded on the AAI's main telephone line at 11:32 p.m. on July 19, 2006, which stated: Id. ¶ 9.
• An e-mail to sent to the e-mail addresses of James Zogby, Helen Samhan, Nidal Ibrahim, Valerie Smith, and Rebecca Abou-Chedid at the AAI office at 12:13 a.m. on July 29, 2006 with the subject line "AAI murders in Seattle on July 28." The e-mail stated: Id. ¶ 10.
The Indictment contains two counts. Count One alleges that Defendant transmitted "e-mail and telephone communication to the offices of the [AAI] ... and, by threat of force ... attempt[ed] to and did willfully intimidate and interfere with [AAI] employees because of their race and national origin, that is because they were Arab and Lebanese Americans, and because they were and had been enjoying employment, and the perquisites thereof, by a private employer, [AAI]," in violation of 18 § 245(b)(2)(C). Id. ¶ 11. Count Two alleges that Defendant "willfully and knowingly did transmit in interstate commerce ... telephone and e-mail communication to [AAI] employees, in which [he] threatened to injure [AAI] employees," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Id. ¶ 12.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) provides that a "party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial of the general issue," Fed.R.Crim.P 12(b)(2), which has been defined as "evidence relevant to the question of guilt or innocence," United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 246 (D.C.Cir.2005). In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, the Court is bound to accept the facts stated in the indictment as true. United States v. Lattimore, 215 F.2d 847 (D.C.Cir.1954). Significantly, Defendant has not moved to dismiss the Indictment based on an alleged defect. Instead, Defendant asserts that his communications constitute speech on social and political issues that is protected by the First Amendment, rather than "true threats" that may give rise to criminal charges. Defendant argues that whether his communications constitute "true threats" is a question of law, which must be decided by the Court, and is properly decided on a pretrial motion to dismiss. The Court notes that the D.C. Circuit has upheld district court pretrial dismissals of counts in indictments based on questions of law. Yakou, 428 F.3d at 247 (citing United States v. Espy, 145 F.3d 1369, 1370 (D.C.Cir.1998); United States v. Oakar, 111 F.3d 146, 147-50 (D.C.Cir. 1997)).
[1-3] The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." "The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow `free trade in ideas'-even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003) (quoting Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919)). Nevertheless, the First Amendment's protections are not absolute, and the Supreme Court has "long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution." Id. The First Amendment permits "restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are `of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.'" R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382-83, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)). The parties agree that the only such exception relevant to the instant case is that the First Amendment permits the imposition of criminal sanctions on the expression of "true threats." See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 2; Gov't Resp. to MTD at 9.4
The Indictment charges Defendant with violating two criminal laws by sending the communications described above. In particular, Count One charges Defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(C), which provides:
Whoever ... by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidate or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been ... applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Count Two is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which provides "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing ... any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." The Indictment thus charges Defendant with criminal action based on his speech.
The Supreme Court has cautioned that where a statute ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Taylor
...of a serious threat than one made publicly to a group that does not include the "intended recipient." Id. ; U.S. v. Syring , 522 F.Supp.2d 125, 134 (D.D.C. 2007). Defendant never communicated any statement directly to D.A. Welch. He posted the comments while at home making dinner for his fa......
-
U.S. v. Ring
...a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, the Court is bound to accept the facts stated in the indictment as true." United States v. Syring, 522 F.Supp.2d 125, 128 (D.D.C.2007); United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 78-79, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962) ("[A]t this stage of the proceedings th......
-
United States v. Singhal
...dismiss under Rule 12, the Court must view must assume the factual allegations stated in the indictment as true. United States v. Syring, 522 F.Supp.2d 125, 128 (D.D.C.2007).B. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Counts Six through Nine [39, 40, 44, 46, 47, 49] Defendants challenge Counts Six th......
-
People v. Lowery
...defendant intended to transmit the interstate communication and that the communication contained a true threat”]; United States v. Syring (D.D.C.2007) 522 F.Supp.2d 125, 129 [“courts in all jurisdictions consider whether a reasonable person would consider the statement a serious expression ......
-
SEARCHING FOR TRUTH IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S TRUE THREAT DOCTRINE.
...v. United States, 575 U.S. 723, 747 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). (109.) United States v. Syring, 522 F. Supp. 2d 125,130 (D.D.C. 2007) (discussing how several circuits analyze threats in their "entire factual (110.) See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 ......