United States v. Hall
| Decision Date | 15 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:10-cr-154 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIELLE HALL, Defendant. |
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Suppress Statements
On December 16, 2010, a grand jury issued a two-count indictment charging Defendant Danielle Hall with corruptly influencing a federal grand jury investigation, under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, and knowingly and willfully making a false statement to federal law enforcement officers, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Indictment, ECF No. 1. On September 19, Hall filed a combined Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Suppress Statements, ECF No. 31. The Court held a hearing on October 20, 2011, Mots. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 37, and the parties filed supplemental briefing, Def.'s Supp'l Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Suppress, Nov. 21, 2011, ECF No. 38; Gov't's Supp'l Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Suppress and Mot. to Dismiss Indictment, Dec. 6, 2011, ECF No. 39.
The Motion to Dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the indictment, arguing it fails to list essential elements of theoffenses charged and to describe their particulars to comport with the Constitution's requirements. The Motion to Suppress argues two grounds for suppressing statements Hall made in interviews with federal agents. First, Hall contends the agents were required to give her Miranda warnings but failed to issue them. Second, she maintains the statements she provided were not voluntary, violating the Due Process Clause.
The Court finds the indictment lists the elements of the offenses and the nature of Hall's conduct sufficiently to survive a motion to dismiss and also finds no Miranda or Due Process Clause violation requiring suppression of Hall's interview statements. Hall's motions are therefore denied.
The government charges that Hall, while working as a legal assistant in the Burlington, Vermont U.S. Attorney's Office, accessed and disclosed confidential information on government cooperating witnesses in a drug investigation concerning her then-boyfriend, Michael Ryan. The grand jury returned an indictment with two counts, the first a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 for obstruction of justice, alleging Hall corruptly influenced the grand jury investigation by giving confidential information to Ryan. Indictment 1. The second charge was for knowingly and willfully making a "false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation" about her conduct tofederal agents, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Indictment 2.
The Motion to Suppress concerns statements Hall gave in two interviews with federal agents. The first took place on April 17, 2008 at the Burlington U.S. Attorney's Office. The day before, Hall was hospitalized for attempting suicide. The Colchester, Vermont police department fielded a 911 call from Michael Ryan, who reported the suicide attempt. Recognizing that Ryan was the target of a federal drug investigation, the Colchester police phoned Thomas Anderson, then the United States Attorney for Vermont, to inform him of the incident. Hearing of the connection between Ryan and an employee in his office, Anderson reported the events to the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which in turn sent Special Agent Tom Hopkins of the Department's Office of the Inspector General to Burlington the next morning to investigate.1
On the morning of April 17, Anderson met with Agent Hopkins and DEA Special Agent Rick Carter, who was based in Burlington and working on the Ryan investigation, at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Like Anderson, Agent Hopkins and Carter were aware ofHall's suicide attempt the previous day. Hopkins hoped to speak with Hall, should she come to work, to discover the nature of her relationship with Ryan. Around 9:00 am, Hall arrived at the office and was brought by a staff member to a conference room where Anderson met her. Anderson introduced Hall to Hopkins, who was inside the conference room, and told her that Hopkins "would be interviewing her." Tr. 13, 29-30. Mr. Anderson did not tell Hall that she was required to speak with Hopkins, threaten her with the loss of her job if she did not, or tell Hall that he was upset with her. Anderson left and did not speak with or see Hall again until after her interview was complete. He testified that he "was taking [his] lead from Special Agent Hopkins" as to how to handle the situation. Tr. 14, 30.
In the conference room, Agent Carter soon joined Hopkins, who explained to Hall that the interview was voluntary and that she did not have to consent to speak with them. Hopkins told the Court that, at the time, the investigation "was very nascent," and he had no plan, or grounds, to arrest Hall. Tr. 38-39. Hopkins produced OIG Form III 226.2, a standard waiver entitled "Warnings And Assurances to Employee Requested to Provide Information on a Voluntary Basis." Gov't's Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Suppress and Mot. to Dismiss the Indictment Ex. 1, Oct. 3, 2011, ECF No. 32-1. They explained the form to Hall, including reading it out loud, and asked her if she would agreeto sign it. The form advised the defendant: that the agents were interested in information concerning the "alleged misconduct, including but not limited to, improper association"; that the interview was voluntary; that Hall did "not have to answer questions"; that "[n]o disciplinary action" would result from refusing to submit to the interview; and that "any statement you furnish may be used as evidence in any future criminal proceedings or agency disciplinary proceeding, or both." Gov't's Mem. Ex. 1, Oct. 3, 2011. Hall read the form herself and signed it, Tr. 46-48, acknowledging:
I understand the warnings and assurances stated above and I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me.
The interview lasted approximately three hours. Agent Hopkins characterized it as uncontentious, although "probably uncomfortable" for Hall. Tr. 52. He noted that she "was not combative" and was "agreeable." Tr. 52. He said he and Agent Carter were "deferential" and let her speak without contradicting her account. Tr. 96-97. Hopkins explained he and Agent Carter were mindful of Hall's recent suicide attempt and also did not have any evidence to doubt her story. The agents used no restraints of any kind on Hall, and at no time informed her that she was in custody. They did not give a Miranda warning. Duringthe interview, Hall admitted to having a romantic relationship with Ryan and to learning that he was under investigation by the DEA. She said Ryan knew she worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office. She admitted to accessing electronic files related to the Ryan investigation, but denied providing case-related information to Ryan or others.
In the latter half of the interview, Hopkins asked Hall if she would be willing to compose an affidavit to memorialize her statements. When Hall agreed, Hopkins wrote a first draft in longhand based on his interview notes, pausing line-by-line to confirm what information Hall wanted in the document. Hall suggested several changes and Hopkins made all of them. He then gave Hall the draft and asked her to write her own onto an affidavit form and sign it herself. Hopkins testified that this approach is standard practice to ensure neatness. Hall wrote and signed the statement, and in it she acknowledged her voluntary consent to the interview and voluntary submission of the affidavit. Gov't's Mem. Ex. 2, Oct. 3, 2011, ECF No. 32-2. Afterward, she met with Anderson and an administrative officer. Anderson instructed Hall to leave the office and informed her that he was placing her on administrative leave until at least the end of the week. Hall turned in her keys and access cards and left the building.
On August 22, 2008, Agents Hopkins and Carter went to interview Hall a second time at a school within the Winooski, Vermont school district, her new place of employment. Hopkins testified that the decision to meet Hall there, unannounced, was a strategic one. He felt that her workplace would be a controlled and safe environment for the interviewers and that the element of surprise would reduce the chance that Hall could prepare a false story or speak to an attorney in advance. As it was August, the agents encountered no students in the building, nor did they identify themselves or their business with Hall to staff. Finding Hall, they asked her if they could talk. They did not, at any point, provide her with Miranda warnings. Although "[s]he didn't look very happy" to see them, she led them to an empty room adjacent to her office. Tr 62. They spoke for a maximum of five minutes while standing, Hall near the doorway. Hall was "defensive" and "upset." Tr. 63-64. Hopkins acknowledged the interview was more combative than the first.
The agents did not restrain Hall or prevent her from leaving the room. They did not arrest her or claim they had come to arrest her. Hopkins told her they had additional evidence suggesting she lied to them in April, including proof that she had passed information to Ryan. Hall again acknowledged accessing the files but denied disclosing them to Ryan or others. However, she admitted her memory of that period was imperfectbecause she had been drinking a lot at the time. Hall then said she wanted to speak with a lawyer, and the agents informed her that she could. They immediately terminated the interview and left the building.
For an indictment to meet constitutional standards, it must (1) contain the elements of the charged offense and sufficiently inform the defendant of the pending charges and (3) be detailed enough so that the defendant may plead double jeopardy in any future prosecutions on a similar set of facts. Russell v. United States, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial