United States v. Bocachica
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158186
| E.D. Va. | 2014Background
- Indictment alleges DEA Assistant Attaché James T. Watson was murdered in Bogotá, Colombia on June 20, 2013; six defendants charged in related counts.
- Wilson Daniel Peralta‑Bocachica was charged only in Count VII: obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)) for allegedly removing and replacing the bloody back seat of his taxi to destroy evidence.
- Government alleges defendant knew the seat contained evidence, knew of media coverage identifying the victim as a U.S. DEA agent, and was aware Colombian police sought custody of the vehicle.
- Defendant moved to dismiss Count VII as unconstitutional as applied, arguing the statute should not be applied extraterritorially and that prosecution would violate due process/notice.
- The court denied the motion, holding (1) § 1512(h) expressly provides extraterritorial jurisdiction, and (2) prosecuting Peralta‑Bocachica in the U.S. did not violate due process under the Fourth Circuit’s Brehm framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1512 applies extraterritorially | Gov’t: § 1512(h) expressly provides extraterritorial jurisdiction | Peralta‑Bocachica: statute should not reach conduct in Colombia absent congressional intent/power | Court: Congress plainly expressed intent via § 1512(h); extraterritoriality satisfied |
| Whether prosecuting for extraterritorial conduct violates due process (sufficient‑nexus/fair‑warning) | Gov’t: Brehm test satisfied — American interests affected and defendant could expect prosecution somewhere | Peralta‑Bocachica: insufficient nexus to U.S.; no targeting of U.S. interests; lack of fair notice | Court: Brehm controls; U.S. interest in protecting diplomats and victim was a U.S. Assistant Attaché; defendant had reason to anticipate prosecution; due process not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brehm, 691 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2012) (adopts test focusing on whether the conduct affected significant American interests and whether defendant could reasonably expect prosecution somewhere)
- E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) (presumption against extraterritoriality absent clear congressional intent)
- Reyes‑Gaona v. N.C. Growers Ass’n, 250 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 2001) (presumption against extraterritorial application can be overcome only by clear congressional intent)
- United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discusses nexus/fair‑warning concerns when applying U.S. law extraterritorially)
- United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1990) (sufficient nexus found where foreign conduct was directly tied to intended drug importation into the U.S.)
- Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) (recognizing U.S. interest in protecting diplomats and reciprocal protection abroad)