United States v. De La Torre
| Decision Date | 21 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-20185-CR-WILLIAMS/TORRES |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARIO RENE DE LA TORRE, YUMET DE LA TORRE, and JOE LEWIS MCHOMES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mario Rene De La Torre's motion to dismiss indictment.[1] [D.E. 41]. The Government filed its response in opposition on June 16, 2022 [D.E. 19], to which Mr. De La Torre timely filed a reply [D.E. 45]. The Court subsequently ordered supplemental briefing, [D.E. 48, 60], and the parties promptly complied [D.E. 51, 58, 67]. Having reviewed the briefing, the record and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, the Court recommends that the motion be GRANTED. Accordingly, the Superseding Indictment, [D.E. 6], should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic began to disrupt American life, reports emerged that the United States Department of Justice was quietly asking Congress to alter its prosecutorial powers.[2] One proposed alteration asked Congress to pause the statutes of limitations in criminal cases during national emergencies and for an additional year following the end of the national emergency.[3] These requests drew public condemnation from both sides of the aisle: Representative Andrew Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, wrote that ;[4] Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, rhetorically asked ;[5] and Senator Michael Lee, a Republican from Utah, claimed that the requested powers would be granted “OVER MY DEAD BODY.”[6]Ultimately, the statutes of limitations that apply to federal crimes were not modified by Congress in response to the pandemic.[7] And without that modification, the Government found itself in a difficult position when, on March 26, 2020, all Grand Jury service in the Southern District of Florida was suspended until November 17, 2020, due to the health risks associated with COVID-19.[8]
On August 11, 2020, the Government accused Mr. De La Torre of sixteen violations of federal law.[9] Unable to convene a Grand Jury for the purpose of securing an indictment against Mr. De La Torre, the Government made these criminal accusations by submitting an “Information” to the Clerk who subsequently filed it on this Court's public docket.[10]
The Government provided Mr. De La Torre with a copy of the Information eight days after it was filed.[11] The problem was, however, that he was not arrested at that time, nor was he brought before the Court to be apprised of his rights or to receive an objective probable cause determination. To the contrary, on September 25, 2020, the prosecutor assigned to this case met with Mr. De La Torre (and his lawyer) via video conference to discuss the evidence that the Government intended to “introduce at trial to prove the facts alleged in the Information.”[12]
The parties agree that, since learning of the Information in August 2020, Mr. De La Torre has steadfastly refused to waive his constitutional right to be prosecuted pursuant to an indictment returned by the Grand Jury.[13] But even though Grand Jury service resumed on November 17, 2020, the Government did not obtain the “Superseding Indictment” against Mr. De La Torre until February 10, 2022 - roughly fifteen months later.[14]
The content of the Superseding Indictment is remarkably similar to that of the Information, with a couple of notable exceptions. First, two of the sixteen charges have been dropped, bringing the total number of alleged criminal violations down to fourteen. And second, Mr. De La Torre's wife, Yumet De La Torre, who was identified as a defendant and co-conspirator in the Information, is not listed as a defendant in the Superseding Indictment.[15]
Following the return of the Superseding Indictment, Mr. De La Torre was arrested and then released on a bond that severely restricts, among other things, his right to travel, his right to possess a firearm for self-defense, and his right to sell some of his most valuable property.[16]
Mr. De La Torre subsequently moved to dismiss the Superseding Indictment, seeking to establish that nine of the fourteen alleged counts are foreclosed from prosecution by the relevant statutes of limitations.[17] Upon reviewing the record in this case, however, the Court became concerned that the briefing related to Mr. De La Torre's motion may have been less than comprehensive; accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing.[18] And so, with the benefit of a fully briefed record, Mr. De La Torre's motion is now ripe for disposition.
The Framers of our Constitution, most of whom were trained in English law, accepted the Grand Jury as a “basic guarantee of individual liberty” because it functions as a “barrier” to “reckless or unfounded charges.” United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 571 (1976) (plurality opinion). In other words, the Grand Jury provides a “shield” against “arbitrary or oppressive action” by ensuring that serious criminal accusations will be brought “only upon the considered judgment of a representative body of citizens acting under oath and under judicial instruction and guidance.” Id. And from a structural perspective, the importance of this individual “shield” against unfounded criminal prosecution is only heightened when it is contextualized with the substantial prosecutorial powers that the Executive Branch may legitimately exercise under Article II of the Constitution. Cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 406 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.) ().
Therefore, the first question presented to the Court is whether the Government's filing of something other than a Grand Jury indictment is sufficient to satisfy the relevant statutes of limitations absent the consent of the accused. For the reasons discussed herein, and upon reconsideration of the overall issue from other cases we have adjudicated, the Court holds that it is not.
To reiterate, the Government initially levied its criminal accusations against Mr. De La Torre and his alleged co-conspirators, Mrs. De La Torre and Mr. McHomes, on August 11, 2020. None of the three defendants named in the Information waived his or her right to be prosecuted pursuant to an indictment from the Grand Jury. Nevertheless, the Government did not obtain its Superseding Indictment from the Grand Jury until February 10, 2022. The parties agree that the statutes of limitations applicable to nine of the fourteen counts in the Superseding Indictment expired after the Information was filed but before the Superseding Indictment was returned.[19]
With respect to the nine counts in the Superseding Indictment that Mr. De La Torre is challenging, there are two different statutes of limitations that apply (even though every offense charged in the Superseding Indictment qualifies as a felony) because one of the nine counts is an alleged violation of the federal tax laws. See, e.g., [D.E. 6 at 16-18] (penalty sheet). The first relevant statute of limitations provides that “no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (emphasis added). The second relevant statute of limitations pertinently provides that no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for...
To continue reading
Request your trial