BERNARD FREUNDEL v. UNITED STATES
146 A.3d 375
| D.C. | 2016Background
- Bernard Freundel, a rabbi, pleaded guilty to 52 counts of voyeurism for secretly placing video recorders in a mikvah changing/shower room and recording 52 separate women undressing between 2012–2014; police recovered many recordings and devices.
- Each count charged violations of D.C. Code § 22-3531(b) (hidden observation devices) and § 22-3531(c) (nonconsensual electronic recording where victim has reasonable expectation of privacy).
- Each statutory violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year incarceration and fines.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive 45-day jail terms on each count; Freundel moved under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) to correct illegal sentences, arguing the consecutive terms violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because his conduct was a single course of conduct.
- The trial court denied the Rule 35 motion; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed, holding multiple punishments under § 22-3531(c) were permissible as to each separate victim given the statute’s purpose and language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences/ multiple convictions under D.C. Code § 22-3531(c) violate Double Jeopardy | Freundel: All recordings were part of a single voyeuristic course of conduct, so only one punishable offense (and thus at most one year incarceration) | Government: Each nonconsensual recording violated individual victims’ privacy; statute contemplates protecting each victim, so separate punishments are permissible | Court: Affirmed — § 22-3531(c) permits separate punishment per victim; Double Jeopardy not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. United States, 531 A.2d 994 (D.C. 1987) (multiple convictions forbidden for same offense; multiple punishments allowed for separate criminal acts)
- Lennon v. United States, 736 A.3d 208 (D.C. 1999) (legislative intent can authorize multiple punishments for the same act)
- Hammond v. United States, 77 A.3d 964 (D.C. 2013) (unit of prosecution inquiry is one of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (plea may limit availability of certain postconviction challenges)
- Snowden v. United States, 52 A.3d 858 (D.C. 2012) (separate and cumulative punishment generally allowed for crimes against different victims)
- Vines v. United States, 70 A.3d 1170 (D.C. 2013) (unit of prosecution determined by statute; multiple victims can support multiple offenses)
- Speaks v. United States, 959 A.2d 712 (D.C. 2008) (gravamen of certain offenses is the effect on each individual victim)
- Murray v. United States, 358 A.2d 314 (D.C. 1976) (statutory purpose guides whether multiple punishments are intended; discussed in context of ambiguity)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955) (where statutory purpose ambiguous, single conviction may be required)
- Heard v. United States, 686 A.2d 1026 (D.C. 1996) (rule of lenity applies only when statutory text, structure, and history leave reasonable doubt about scope of multiple punishments)