United States v. De Bruhl-Daniels

• Decision Date: 30 September 2020
• Docket Number: Criminal Action H-18-199-5
• Citation: 491 F.Supp.3d 237
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Leatrice Malika DE BRUHL-DANIELS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

491 F.Supp.3d 237

UNITED STATES of America

v.Leatrice Malika DE BRUHL-DANIELS

Criminal Action H-18-199-5

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed September 30, 2020

Arthur R. Jones, Financial Litigation, Alamdar Shabbir Hamdani, United States Attorney's Office, Houston, TX, for United States of America.

Joshua Bradley Lake, Kevin McGuire Cobb, Scott Andrew Martin, Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Leatrice Malika De Bruhl-Daniels.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Gray H. Miller, Senior United States District Judge Pending before the court are defendant Leatrice Malika De Bruhl-Daniels's motion to dismiss counts 25–28 for a Speedy Trial Act violation (Dkt. 311), motion to dismiss counts 15, 25–28, and 36–37 for failure to state an offense (Dkt. 312), and motion to strike (Dkt. 313). The United States of America (the "Government") has responded in opposition to all three motions. Dkts. 315–17. Having considered the motions, responses, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that defendant's motion to dismiss counts 25–28 should be GRANTED, but that defendant's motion to dismiss counts 15, 25–28, and 36–37, and motion to strike should be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2018, the Government filed a criminal complaint against De Bruhl-Daniels. Dkt. 1. The complaint alleges that De Bruhl-Daniels engaged in a course of conduct spanning from June 1, 2016 to September 12, 2018 that constituted one or more violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (attempting to obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding). Id. Attached to the complaint was a ten-page affidavit detailing the conduct.

De Bruhl-Daniels was a Special Agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). Id. ¶ 4. While stationed at the United States Consulate in Dubai, U.A.E., she allegedly became acquainted with a Syrian national named Nadal Diya. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Through her interactions with representatives from various other federal agencies, the complaint alleges, De Bruhl-Daniels learned that Diya was the target of active federal criminal and counterterrorism investigations. Id. ¶¶ 6–11, 15, 17.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, De Bruhl-Daniels told Diya some of what she had learned about the federal investigations, including that he was a target. Id. ¶¶ 18–19. It also alleges that when the FBI interviewed her on December 18, 2017 regarding her interactions with Diya, De Bruhl-Daniels concealed relevant information about her romantic relationship with him and what she had disclosed to him. Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Finally, the complaint alleges that De Bruhl-Daniels prepared Diya for his own interview with federal agents by providing him with details about her interview, instructions on what to bring and how to respond to questions, and an admonition not to disclose details of their relationship. Id. ¶ 22.

The complaint followed the filing of an indictment (Dkt. 1) on April 11, 2018, that charged one of De Bruhl-Daniels's codefendants, Fadi Issa Issa, with willfully filing false tax returns, and a superseding indictment (Dkt. 6-1) on September 26, 2018, that charged a total of four codefendants—Issa, Diya, Labib Deeb Arafat, and Maximiliano Sandoval Romero—with various other crimes.

A. Obstruction Counts (15 and 25–28)

On October 24, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment, which for the first time added De Bruhl-Daniels as a codefendant and charged her in count 15 with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Dkt. 16 at 10. Count 15 offered as a factual basis for the charge that De Bruhl-Daniels had "provid[ed] details of certain federal criminal investigations to NADAL DIYA, including that he is the target of those federal criminal investigations, the names of other targets of those federal criminal investigations, and that he would face arrest if he traveled to the United States." Id.

On January 9, 2020, the grand jury returned a fifth superseding indictment, which again included count 15, but also charged De Bruhl-Daniels in counts 25–28 with four additional violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Dkt. 210 at 9, 15–16. Counts 25–27 concerned statements that De Bruhl-Daniels made to the FBI in the December 18, 2017 interview, and count 28 related to her role preparing Diya for his interview with federal agents. Id.

On March 5, 2020, the grand jury returned a sixth superseding indictment that restated verbatim counts 25–28. Dkt. 274 at 14–16. It also split the conduct previously charged in count 15 across counts 15, 36, and 37. Id. at 9, 22–23.

B. False Statement Counts (21–24 and 32–34)

De Bruhl-Daniels is also charged with a number of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (false statements). Unlike the § 1512(c) counts, the precise chronology of when the § 1001(a) counts first appeared is not relevant. What is relevant is that De Bruhl-Daniels was charged with violating § 1001(a) in two contexts. First, she is alleged in counts 21–24 to have concealed, in the December 18, 2017 FBI interview, details about her personal and sexual relationship with Diya, that he gave her around $1,400, that he promised to give her son a job, and that she told him he was the target of several law enforcement investigations, including an FBI counterterrorism investigation. Id. at 12–14. Second, she is alleged in counts 32–34 to have falsely represented in an April 24, 2018 Departure Briefing form that she had not had contact with any country nationals, had no intimate relationships with any foreign nationals to report, and was not aware of any classified or sensitive information being compromised. Id. at 19–21.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 25–28

De Bruhl-Daniels first asks the court to dismiss counts 25–28, asserting that the Government failed to timely indict her on these counts, resulting in a Speedy Trial Act ("STA") violation. Dkt. 311.

A. Legal Standard

The STA requires that "any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense [be] filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a summons in connection with such charges." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Further, if a complaint is filed against a defendant but no information or indictment is filed within thirty days charging the same offenses contained in the complaint, then those charges "shall be dismissed or otherwise dropped." Id. § 3162(a)(1). Where there "is both a timely and an untimely indictment, the first instrument will toll the STA clock only if the indictments charge an identical offense." See United States v. Martinez-Espinoza , 299 F.3d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Perez , 217 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2000) ). Whether two offenses are identical depends on "whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." Id. at 417 (quoting Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ). In other words, "where the conduct charged in an initial accusatory instrument, and a subsequent indictment produce[ ] congruent Venn circles, the conduct is the same ‘offense’ for purposes of § 3161(b)." Id.

B. Analysis

1. Timeliness Under the STA's Thirty-Day Rule

The complaint filed on September 28, 2018, charged De Bruhl-Daniels with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Dkt. 1. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit detailing all the conduct supporting counts 15 and 25–28, all of which are alleged violations of § 1512(c)(2). Id. The second superseding indictment, which contained count 15, was returned twenty-six days later on October 24, 2018, comfortably within the thirty-day limit mandated by the STA. Dkt. 16. The fifth superseding indictment, which was the first to contain counts 25–28, was returned on January 9, 2020, more than a year after the complaint. Dkt. 210. One indictment is timely and the other is untimely. The timely indictment tolled the STA clock for only the offense it charged. See Martinez-Espinoza , 299 F.3d at 416. The clock was not tolled for any conduct charged in the complaint, but not included in the second superseding indictment. See id. If the fifth superseding indictment, therefore, charges any such conduct, then those counts must be dismissed.

To resolve this issue, both De Bruhl-Daniels and the Government point to the same test, explained in Martinez-Espinoza , for determining whether the charging documents charge the same offense. Dkt. 311 at 4; Dkt. 316 at 3. As the court explained in that case, "where the conduct charged in an initial accusatory instrument, and a subsequent indictment produce[ ] congruent Venn circles, the conduct is the same ‘offense’ for purposes of § 3161(b)." Martinez-Espinoza , 299 F.3d at 417. The term "Venn circles" is no doubt a reference to the Venn diagram, a graphical tool used to compare two items. In the typical Venn diagram, there are two circles that overlap slightly. Each circle represents one of the items being compared. For example, suppose one wishes to compare A and B. One of the circles represents A , and the other represents B. Ideas, properties, and characteristics that relate only to A are listed in the part of the A circle that does not overlap with the B circle. Ideas, properties, and characteristics that relate to both A and B are listed in the overlapping portion. And finally, ideas, properties, and characteristics that relate only to B are listed in the non-overlapping portion of the B circle. Therefore, a Venn diagram that consists of "congruent Venn circles," would represent a comparison of two entirely identical items.

While the parties agree on the test, they each set out to compare different "Venn circles." De Bruhl-Daniels compares count 15 to counts 25–28, noting that the two Venn circles are not congruent because, despite charging the same statutory offense, they involve entirely different conduct. Dkt. 311 at 7. The Government compares the "course of conduct" detailed in the complaint to the course of conduct from which the...