United States v. Binyamin Stimler
864 F.3d 253
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Three Orthodox rabbis (Stimler, Goldstein, Epstein) were convicted after a jury trial for conspiracy to commit kidnapping arising from a scheme to coerce recalcitrant husbands to grant religious divorces (gittin) by abduction and violence.
- FBI conducted a sting where an agent posed as an agunah; beth din proceedings and plans for a staged kidnapping were arranged; arrests occurred at the planned site.
- Government obtained 57 days of historic cell-site location information (CSLI) for Goldstein under a §2703(d) Stored Communications Act (SCA) order; Goldstein moved to suppress.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under RFRA, and sought to introduce evidence of Orthodox Jewish law and religious motive; the district court excluded that evidence.
- At trial, coconspirator statements from a beth din were admitted; jury convicted all three; sentences ranged from 39 to 120 months. Appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CSLI obtained under §2703(d) (suppression) | Gov: §2703(d) order satisfies SCA; third-party doctrine means no reasonable expectation of privacy | Goldstein: aggregation of historic CSLI implicates Fourth Amendment and needs a warrant; alternatively §2703(d) lacked reasonable grounds | Court: Followed In re Application; third-party doctrine inapplicable but no Fourth Amendment violation; §2703(d) met reasonable-grounds standard — suppression denied |
| RFRA challenge / dismissal of indictment | Defs: prosecution substantially burdens religious exercise of performing mitzvah to secure gittin | Gov: prosecution of violent crime is compelling interest; alternative nonviolent means exist; joint prosecution necessary | Court: Defs failed to show a ‘substantial’ burden; even if they had, gov’t interest compelling and prosecution least restrictive — RFRA claim denied |
| Admission of evidence re: Orthodox law / religious motive (relevance and Rule 403) | Defs: religious law negates criminal motive or shows husbands’ consent | Gov: religious motivation does not negate intent to commit crime; consent must be specific; religious evidence risks jury nullification | Court: Religious motive is a possible "benefit" under statute; evidence not sufficiently relevant to consent and highly prejudicial — exclusion was not an abuse of discretion |
| Jury instructions and response to jury question (temporal element, jurisdictional element, jury note on failure to intervene) | Defs: omitted interstate-jurisdiction element in conspiracy; should require ‘‘appreciable period’’ for kidnapping; court’s answer suggested failure to intervene could convict conspiracy | Gov: instructions as a whole included jurisdictional element; no temporal requirement in statute; court limited answer to substantive counts | Court: Instructions read as a whole adequate; no plain error; response to jury question proper |
| Admission of beth din statements (hearsay / Confrontation Clause) | Defs: statements testimonial and hearsay; Confrontation Clause violated | Gov: statements non-testimonial (not made for prosecution); admissible as co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and satisfied in‑furtherance and timing | Court: Statements non‑testimonial; sufficient evidence they were co‑conspirator statements in furtherance; admission proper (any error harmless) |
| Sufficiency of evidence and outrageous government conduct | Stimler: insufficient evidence of his involvement; all defs: sting was outrageous and violated due process | Gov: surveillance, disguise, countersurveillance, and eyewitnessing supported conspiracy; defendants orchestrated scheme themselves | Court: Evidence viewed favorably to gov’t was sufficient; due process/orchestrated-sting claim waived and, on merits, not met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of the United States for an Order Directing a Provider of Electronic Communication Service to Disclose Records to the Government, 620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir.) (CSLI not protected by third-party doctrine; §2703(d) regime upheld)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S.) (cell‑phone content privacy; aggregation of digital data increases Fourth Amendment concerns)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S.) (long‑term location tracking raises Fourth Amendment privacy concerns; concurrences emphasize aggregation)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (U.S.) (RFRA framework and strict scrutiny analysis)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S.) (preponderance standard for co‑conspirator statement predicate)