United States v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 07 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-1540, No. 16-1559,16-1540 |
| Citation | 905 F.3d 165 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Amy GONZALEZ, Appellant United States of America v. David Matusiewicz Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Jeremy H.G. Ibrahim, Sr. [ARGUED], P.O. Box 1025, 1631 Baltimore Pike, Chadds Ford, PA 19317, Counsel for Appellant Amy Gonzalez
Edson A. Bostic, Tieffa N. Harper [ARGUED], Office of the Federal Public Defender, 800 King Street, Suite 200, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellant David Matusiewicz
David C. Weiss, Jamie M. McCall [ARGUED], Shawn A. Weede, Office of United States Attorney, 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 700, P.O. Box 2046, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellee
Edward J. McAndrew, Lindsey B. Zionts, Ballard Spahr, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Amici Curiae Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children, Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Center for Victims of Crime, and National Network to End Domestic Violence in support of Appellee
Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA, RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
II. Facts and Procedural History...174
III. Analysis...178
IV. Conclusion...208
I. Introduction
This case concerns challenges by David Matusiewicz and Amy Gonzalez (together, the "defendants") to their convictions for conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and cyberstalking, interstate stalking resulting in death, and cyber stalking resulting in death, and to their resulting life sentences for conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and cyberstalking which resulted in the death of Christine Belford, the ex-wife of David Matusiewicz. The defendants are siblings and were indicted, along with their mother, Lenore Matusiewicz, after their father, Thomas Matusiewicz, shot and killed Belford and himself in the lobby of the New Castle County Courthouse. They engaged in a years-long conspiracy with Thomas Matusiewicz, an unindicted co-conspirator, to harass Belford, which ultimately resulted in her death. On appeal, each defendant challenges, inter alia, the constitutionality of the statutes under which they were convicted, the jury's verdict on sufficiency of the evidence grounds, various evidentiary rulings of the District Court, as well as numerous challenges to their sentences of life imprisonment. Faced with numerous issues of first impression in this complicated case, District Judge Gerald McHugh, sitting by designation, handled this case with exceptional precision and care. We will affirm the District Court in all respects.
II. Facts and Procedural History
David Matusiewicz1 and Christine Belford were married from 2001 to 2006, during which time they had three children, L.M.1, L.M.2, and K.M.1 (the "children"). The couple and their children also lived with Belford's one child from a previous marriage, K.M.2.2 After their divorce, Belford and David engaged in a bitter custody dispute, during which David accused Belford of being an unfit mother and suffering from mental health disorders. On February 13, 2007, following an evaluation by a psychologist who determined that David's allegations were unfounded, the Delaware Family Court awarded joint custody of the children.
On August 26, 2007, rather than let the children return from staying with David to live with Belford, David, along with his mother Lenore, kidnapped L.M.1, L.M.2, and K.M.1 and absconded to Central America. During the kidnapping, David told L.M.1 that Belford had committed suicide. In March 2009, the children were located in Nicaragua and rescued, and David and Lenore were arrested. The children returned to live with Belford, who had been awarded sole custody during the kidnapping. David pleaded guilty to federal kidnapping charges and was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment on December 10, 2009. Appendix ("App.") 137.
Later that month, while incarcerated, David sent a letter to his sister, Amy Gonzalez, in which he stated, "I'm done playing Mr. Nice Guy," and urged her to "begin making complaints anonymously and repeatedly to [Delaware Youth and Family Services]." App. 3389-90, 7222. He also instructed her to "make sure Melinda's website is up and has a true story on it and is well publicized." App. 3390, 7222. Beginning in December 2009, a webpage was published that identified Belford and her children by name and set forth detailed claims against Belford of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect of the children. That website was registered to Melinda Kula, the sister-in-law of Thomas and Lenore. It stated that the "[a]ctual names were used by the request and with the permission of David Matusiewicz." App. 7882.
In March and April 2011, Gonzalez published three YouTube videos, which included secret recordings of Belford and the children taken by a private investigator; posts claiming Belford sexually abused her daughter, L.M.1; and images of polygraph test results of Lenore and Gonzalez, which described the accusations of sexual abuse. From May 2011 through September 2012, David and Gonzalez had contact with David's former girlfriend, Cindy Bender, and enlisted her to probe Belford for details about her life and to share what she learned, which included information from Belford's private Facebook account.
Acting on instructions received from David while he was in prison, Lenore and Gonzalez mailed letters that accused Belford of sexual abuse to numerous media outlets, to the children's school and teachers, and to Belford's family members, neighbors, employer, church, and other members of her community. The defendants also mailed letters and cards directly to Belford and her children. Gonzalez and Thomas solicited their friends to drive past Belford's home and report on what they observed. The defendants also convinced a real estate agent in Delaware to conduct surveillance of Belford's house and to provide them with information about Belford's residence and about various persons who were part of Belford's life and who were coming and going from her home.
Between November 2010 and July 2011, the Delaware Family Court conducted a hearing over seven separate days on Belford's petition for termination of David's parental rights as to the children. On August 18, 2011, the Delaware Family Court entered an order terminating David's parental rights as well as Thomas's, Lenore's, and Gonzalez's familial rights (the "TPR Order"). App. 7827-68, 4310. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision. App. 2154-55. In spite of the TPR Order, the defendants continued to send letters to Belford's home and made extrajudicial contact with the lawyers, judges, and witnesses involved in the TPR matter. Thomas and Lenore made numerous phone calls to the chambers of the judge overseeing a separate civil matter between Belford and the Matusiewicz family, during which they told the judge's assistant, referring to Belford, that the "bitch is going to get what is coming to her." App. 3057.
On December 1, 2011, Thomas and Lenore travelled to Delaware and showed up uninvited at Belford's house. Although Belford was not at home, the children and Belford's boyfriend were. Belford's boyfriend instructed Thomas to leave. This trip was ostensibly to visit the children, despite the fact that Delaware Family Court had previously denied petitions by both Thomas and Gonzalez to visit the children. The night before the trip, Thomas and Gonzalez exchanged emails in which Thomas informed Gonzalez of the visit, instructed her to clean out his home safe, and told her that he would let her know how things worked out. App. 3319-21, 8886. In response, Gonzalez gave Thomas her temporary cell phone number and told him to be careful. App. 8886. In the emails, Thomas and David refer to Belford by a nickname, "wb," which stood for "Whore Bitch." App. 3243-44. Thomas sent a letter to David after his visit that contained the details of what he had observed. App. 7226-28. After this visit, Belford took steps to sell her home and move. The defendants then obtained the real estate listing — before it was made publicly available — from the real estate agent whom they had enlisted to surveil Belford.
On November 1, 2012, David sent Gonzalez an email saying, "[p]repare yourself to be managing four by this time in 2013." App. 3460-61. Gonzalez responded to the email by stating that she was "praying for it." App. 3462. The Government's case agent later testified that the reference to "four" equated to David's three children plus Gonzalez's one child. App. 3461.
On November 5, 2012, David filed a petition to reduce his back payments of child support in Delaware Family Court. A hearing was scheduled in Delaware, and although David was informed he could participate by phone as he resided with his family in Texas at the time, he chose to attend in person. David received permission from his probation officers to attend, but he failed to disclose to them that he could participate by phone or that his parents would be accompanying him. On February 4, 2013, David, Lenore, and Thomas drove to Delaware in two vehicles, which were loaded with an assault rifle, handguns, military-style knives, thousands of rounds of ammunition, restraints,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Scarfo
...conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact[,]" Scarfo has not shown an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gonzalez , 905 F.3d 165, 195 (3d Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).115 B. Pelullo's Motion for Remand Based on Giglio Evidence116 Unbeknownst to the Defendants or the Di......
-
Griddine v. GP1 KS-Sb, Inc.
...past medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause."). 52. United States v. Gonzales, 905 F.3d 165, 199 (3d Cir. 2018) (collecting cases) ("The decisions of our sister Courts of Appeals support this conclusion, as every Court of Appeals to ......
-
Yoast v. Pottstown Borough
...(2012) (citing Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. , 336 U.S. 490, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949) ); see also United States v. Gonzalez , 905 F.3d 165, 191 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Stevens , 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ).22 Waggy , 936 F.3d at......
-
United States v. Yung
...responds that his plea agreement lets him appeal only overbreadth, not restitution. We review each issue de novo. United States v. Gonzalez , 905 F.3d 165, 190 (3d Cir. 2018) ; United States v. Quillen , 335 F.3d 219, 221 (3d Cir. 2003).II. THE CYBERSTALKING STATUTE IS NOT OVERBROAD Yung fi......
-
OVERBROAD INJUNCTIONS AGAINST SPEECH (ESPECIALLY IN LIBEL AND HARASSMENT CASES).
...States v. Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. (178.) See 701 F.3d at 852-53. (179.) See id. at 854. (180.) Id. at 855 (emphasis added). (181.) 753 F.3d at 947. Two of the cases Osing......
-
Trials
...violated by admission of unnamed inmates’ statements to government informant because statements were nontestimonial); U.S. v. Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165, 202 (3d Cir. 2018) (Confrontation Clause not violated by admission of victim’s statements to therapist because statements were nontestimonial......
-
Preliminary Sections
...of cumulative/ repetitive information…. wasting everyone’s time 403 ; U.S. v. Maldonado-Pena , 4 F.4th 1 (1st 2021); U.S. v. Gonzalez , 905 F.3d 165 (3d 2018) C-3 Making and Sustaining Trial Objections: Quick Reference Card OBJECTION PRESENTATION IDEAS AUTHORITY Deadman’s Act ** O, Deadman’......
-
Review Proceedings
...defendants were older than 18 and Harmelin foreclosed argument that life sentence is equivalent to capital punishment); U.S. v. Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165, 208 (3d Cir. 2018) (appellate court did not disturb life sentence for cyberstalking resulting in death because sentence authorized by statu......