United States v. Lidinilah
| Decision Date | 03 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 20-cr-0033 (RAM),20-cr-0033 (RAM) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MUIS LIDINILAH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Muis Lidinilah's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Docket No. 18). Having considered the Motion to Dismiss and the United States' response in opposition thereto, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Motions to dismiss in criminal cases are not intended to test the sufficiency of the Government's evidence and the Government may be able to establish at trial that this case fits the grant of jurisdiction in 18 U.S.C. § 7(1).
This case arises from an alleged sexual assault aboard the M/V Carnival Fascination ("the Vessel"). Reportedly, the Vessel is a Commonwealth of Bahamas-flagged cruise ship registered to Carnival Corporation. (Docket No. 1-1 ¶ 15).
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint in this case, the alleged sexual assault took place on December 26, 2019 when Mr. Lidinilah ("Defendant" or "Mr. Lidinilah") escorted another crew-member to her stateroom. Id. ¶¶ 5-9. Both Defendant and the alleged victim are Indonesian nationals. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. According to the affidavit, the alleged attack took place in "international waters," approximately twenty-three (23) nautical miles west of Dominica. Id. ¶ 14.
Also according to the affidavit, Carnival Cruise Line reported the incident to the FBI and Defendant was detained when the Vessel called on San Juan, Puerto Rico. Id. ¶ 12-13. On January 23, 2020, a Grand Jury indicted Mr. Lidinilah and charged him with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (1) (aggravated sexual abuse) and 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a) (1) (abusive sexual contact). (Docket No. 14).
The Government contends the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 7(1), which extends jurisdiction to vessels owned in whole or in part by citizens of the United States. (Docket No. 21 at 3-4). The Government also invokes case law from the Middle District of Florida in which another Carnival Corporation-owned cruise ship was involved. The Middle District of Florida ruled it had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 7(1). It reasoned that the cruise ship was owned in part by United States Citizens because Carnival Corporation's shares are publicly traded in the United States. Id. at 4. The Government also contends that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this case comports with international law. Id.
In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that Congress lacks authority to extend § 2241 and § 2244(a)(1) to reach conduct between two Indonesian crew members on-board a foreign-flagged vessel and where no United States citizen is involved. (Docket No. 18 at 1-2). Defendant also takes issue with Pizdrint because imputing ownership of the Vessel to Carnival Corporation's United States shareholders "pierces the corporate veil." Id. at 4.
Defendant's criticism of Pizdrint is colorable, but the Court need not rule upon it at this time. Motions to dismiss in criminal cases are not intended to test the sufficiency of the Government's evidence. As explained below, the Government may be able to establish at trial that this case fits within the grant of jurisdiction in 18 U.S.C. 7(1).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1), "[a] party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits." (Emphasis added) Moreover, it provides that "[a] motion that the court lacks jurisdiction may be raised at any time while the case is pending." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). However, the power to dismiss an indictment pursuant to Fed. Crim. 12(b) is "reserved for extremely limited circumstances" because it "directly encroaches upon the fundamental role of the grand jury." Whitehouse v. United States District Court, 53 F.3d 1349, 1360 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 263 (1988)).
A motion to dismiss must attack the facial validity of the indictment and not the government's substantive case. See United States v. Ngige, 780 F.3d 497, 502 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Stewart, 744 F.3d 17 21 (1st Cir. 2014)). When a defendant seeks an indictment's dismissal, "courts take the facts of the indictment as true, mindful that 'the question is not whether the government has presented sufficient evidence to support the charge, but solely whether the allegations in the indictment are sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charged offense.'" Ngige, 780 F.3d at 502 (quoting United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2012)). "In general, an indictment is adequate if it specifies the elements of the offense charged, fairly apprises the defendant of the charge against which he must defend and allows him to contest it without fear of double jeopardy." United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The indictment "may use the statutory language to describe the offense, but it must also be accompanied by such statement of facts and circumstances as to inform the accused of the specific offense with which he is charged." Id. (citing United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 309 (1st Cir. 2000)). Most notably, "the government need not put forth specific evidence to survive a motion to dismiss." Ngige, 780 F.3d at 502.
The courts' reticence regarding pretrial motions to dismiss indictments reaches cases where defendants contend subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See e.g., United States v. Guerrier, 669 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772, 776-77 (2d Cir. 1998))(alterations in original) ("[U]nless prosecutors have 'made what can fairly be described as a full proffer of the evidence [they] intend[] to present on a pretrial to satisfy the jurisdictional element of the offense, the sufficiency of the evidence is not appropriately addressed on a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment.'") With few exceptions, a district court generally has subject matter jurisdiction over a federal criminal case "if the indictment charges that the defendant committed a crime described in a federal criminal statute." United States v. González-Mercado, 402 F.3d 294, 300-1 (1st Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution of the United States empowers Congress to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed in the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations." U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 10. As noted by commentators, "[f]rom the days of the Barbary Pirates, a well- established principle of constitutional law has developed recognizing that the United States may give its federal criminal statutes an extraterritorial application to reach acts occurring outside of its territory." Robert D. Peltz & Lawrence W. Kaye, The Long Reach of U.S. Law Over Crimes Occurring on the High Seas, 20 U.S.F. Mar. L.J. 199, 202 (2008) (citation omitted).
Nevertheless, there is a presumption against extra-territorial application of acts of Congress. See Sale v. Haitian Crts. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 188 (1993); United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co. Ltd., 109 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1997) (). "In this context, the Supreme Court has charged inquiring courts with determining whether Congress has clearly expressed an affirmative desire to apply particular laws to conduct that occurs beyond the borders of the United States." Nippon Paper Industries Co. Ltd., 109 F.3d at 3 (quoting EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)) (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has therefore held that "[w]hen a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none." Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108, 108 (2013) (quoting Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 255 (2010)). Congress has expressed this affirmative desire in the case at bar.
Both offenses charged in the indictment, namely aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact, prohibit acts in the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and 18 § U.S.C. § 2244(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 7 is "the main source for maritime jurisdiction over crimes occurring on the seas." Peltz & Kaye, supra, at 207. It defines the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" of the United States in the relevant part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial