United States v. Brennan

• Decision Date: 07 April 2020
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL NUMBER 19-507
• Citation: 452 F.Supp.3d 225
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Robert BRENNAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

452 F.Supp.3d 225

UNITED STATES of America

v.Robert BRENNAN.

CRIMINAL NUMBER 19-507

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed April 07, 2020

Michelle Morgan, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.

MEMORANDUM

ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.

On April 25, 2019, FBI agents interviewed Robert Brennan, a Catholic priest, in Brennan's Maryland home. In 2013, Brennan had been indicted in state court for sexually abusing S.M.—a child who attended the parish school at which Brennan worked—from 1997 to 2000. Prior to trial, S.M. died, and the charges were dismissed. During the April 25, 2019 interview, Brennan told the FBI that he did not know S.M. or S.M.'s brother, father, or mother prior to 2013. On September 4, 2019, a grand jury indicted Brennan, charging him with four counts of making a materially false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Brennan has filed two motions to dismiss the indictment: one for failure to state an offense and another for improper venue. For the reasons that follow, I will deny both motions.

I. Context

This section provides context surrounding the indictment. The alleged facts in this section are taken, in part, from the parties' briefing and do not represent factual findings by this Court. The government must prove all of factual allegations at trial, and it has not yet had a chance to do so at this pretrial stage.

Robert Brennan was ordained as a Catholic priest on May 16, 1964. He served in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. From 1993 to 2004, Brennan served as a pastor at a Philadelphia parish called "Resurrection of Our Lord," which operated a school. Between 1997 and 2000, S.M.—then a minor—attended the sixth to eighth grades at Resurrection. In 2013, S.M. alleged that he was sexually abused by Brennan while attending Resurrection from 1997-2000.¹ As a result of S.M.'s allegations, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office filed criminal charges against Brennan in September 2013. One month later, S.M. passed away after a drug overdose. Without S.M. as a witness, the District Attorney dismissed its case against Brennan. In November 2013, S.M.'s family filed a civil suit against Brennan and the Archdiocese. In 2018, the civil case reportedly settled.

Between 2016 and 2018, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office undertook an extensive grand-jury investigation into sexual abuse in the Pennsylvania Catholic Church. On July 27, 2018, the grand jury issued an 884-page report. In October 2018, federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania—along with the FBI—began a similar investigation, focusing on uncovering potential federal crimes.

On April 25, 2019, as part of this investigation, two FBI agents drove from the FBI's Philadelphia field office to interview Brennan in his home in Perryville, Maryland. Before the interview began, the FBI agents identified themselves and told Brennan that they were interested in discussing his time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Brennan agreed to speak with them. During the interview, the agents showed Brennan a photograph of Brennan and S.M. posing together at S.M.'s eighth grade graduation. In response, Brennan told the agents that he did not know S.M. and had never been in his company. The agents pointed out that in 2013, Brennan had been arrested for sexually abusing S.M. and was then sued by S.M.'s family. Brennan responded that he knew S.M. was the person in the photograph but that he did not know S.M. prior to the 2013 civil lawsuit. He explained that the parish school was large, that he did not know everyone, and that students frequently wanted to be photographed with priests at graduation. He also told the agents that he did not know S.M.'s father, mother, or brother. The questioning then turned to other topics. Before ending the interview, the agents told Brennan it was a crime to lie to federal agents and repeated their questions about whether Brennan knew S.M. or S.M.'s family. Brennan told the agents that he understood the need to be truthful, and again denied knowing S.M. or S.M.'s family members until after the 2013 lawsuit was filed. The government alleges that Brennan was lying.

II. Background

On September 4, 2019, a grand jury issued an indictment charging Brennan with four counts of making a materially false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It alleges the following:

1. Defendant ROBERT BRENNAN was a Catholic priest ordained on May 16, 1964, who served in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. From in or about December 1993 to in or about June 2004, defendant BRENNAN served as a priest at Resurrection of Our Lord parish in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ("Resurrection").

2. In or about September 2013, the Office of the District Attorney of the City of Philadelphia filed criminal charges against defendant ROBERT BRENNAN, alleging that he had sexually abused a minor, S.M., during defendant BRENNAN's stint at Resurrection ("the criminal allegations"). Defendant BRENNAN was arrested on September 26, 2013.

3. On or about October 13, 2013, S.M. died of a drug overdose. The criminal charges against defendant ROBERT BRENNAN subsequently were dismissed.

4. In or about November 2013, the M. family filed a civil suit against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and defendant ROBERT BRENNAN ("the civil lawsuit"). The Archdiocese of Philadelphia settled the civil lawsuit for an undisclosed amount on or about May 2, 2018.

5. On or about April 25, 2019, in the District of Maryland and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, defendant

ROBERT BRENNAN,

in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency of the executive branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations, in that defendant BRENNAN:

COUNT	DESCRIPTION
1	Stated that prior to the criminal allegations and civil lawsuit, he did not know S.M., when in fact he previously knew S.M.;
2	Stated that prior to the criminal allegations and civil lawsuit, he did not know S.M.'s father, M.M. Sr., when in fact he previously knew M.M. Sr.;
3	Stated that prior to the criminal allegations and civil lawsuit, he did not know S.M.'s mother, D.M., when in fact he previously knew D.M.;
4	Stated that prior to the criminal allegations and civil lawsuit, he did not know S.M.'s brother, M.M. Jr., when in fact he previously knew M.M. Jr.

Each of these statements was made in a matter related to an offense under chapter 109A, 110, 117, and Section 1591 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Redacted Indictment, at 1-2 (ECF No. 37). The indictment's references to the criminal code include the chapters for Sexual Abuse (109A), Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children (110), and Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes (117). The indictment also referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Sex Trafficking of Children by Force, Fraud, or Coercion).

III. Discussion

On January 27, 2020, Brennan filed motions to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense and improper venue, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(v) and 12(b)(3)(A)(i), respectively. In his first motion, Brennan argues that the indictment fails to state an offense as a matter of law because his statements can only relate to time-barred, non-prosecutable crimes, and thus cannot be "material" or within the FBI's jurisdiction, which are two of the elements required under § 1001. This argument fails because it incorrectly assumes that an expired statute of limitations operates as a complete bar to initiating a prosecution.

In his second motion, Brennan argues that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because he made his statements in Maryland. The government argues that venue is proper in this District under an effects-focused venue analysis, which provides that venue may be proper in a district that has felt the effects of a crime if that crime's "essential conduct elements" are defined in terms of their effect. Brennan argues that this effects-based venue analysis is unavailable for § 1001 prosecutions. Circuit courts have split on this question. The majority have allowed for effects-based venue, however, and I follow the majority view. Section 1001's "conduct element" is "making a materially false statement," and the word "materially" necessarily contemplates a statement's potential effects. Thus, as a matter of law, effects-based venue is possible , though the government must ultimately show at trial that this District actually felt the effects of Brennan's conduct in order to satisfy the venue requirement.

A. Failure to State An Offense

Brennan first moves to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an indictment "must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged ...." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). An indictment is facially sufficient if it "(1) contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, (2) sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and (3) allows the defendant to show with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction in the event of a subsequent prosecution." United States v. Stock , 728 F.3d 287, 292 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Huet , 665 F.3d 588, 595 (3d Cir. 2012) ). Detailed allegations are unnecessary. Id. A recitation of the statutory language usually satisfies the first requirement, "so long as there is sufficient factual orientation to permit a defendant to prepare his defense and invoke double jeopardy." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The second and third requirements are normally satisfied by "a factual orientation that includes a specification of the time period of the alleged offense." Id. (citation omitted).

Under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v), a defendant can move to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense...