United States v. Choi
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116905
D.D.C.2011Background
- Respondent Daniel Choi was bench-tried by Magistrate Judge Facciola for failure to obey a lawful order (Class B misdemeanor).
- Choi chained himself to the White House fence on Nov 15, 2010 with 12 others in protest of DADT.
- Protesters were offered deferred-sentencing agreements; co-protestors accepted, but Choi did not.
- Before trial, government raised selective/vindictive prosecution as a potential issue; judge indicated he would consider it at trial.
- Government moved in limine to prevent defense from raising the issue; trial proceeded with evidence on the claims.
- Magistrate Judge Facciola later treated the issue as vindictive, allowed further briefing, and stayed proceedings pending mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has mandamus jurisdiction over a magistrate judge | Government asserts All Writs Act jurisdiction permits district court mandamus to magistrate. | Choi argues lack of jurisdiction to issue mandamus to a magistrate judge. | Court finds jurisdiction exists under All Writs Act in this appellate-like context. |
| Whether selective/vindictive prosecution may be a defense on the merits | Government argues claims are not defenses on the merits and may be raised later. | Choi argues selective/vindictive prosecution may negate merits of prosecution. | Claims are not defenses on the merits; mandamus directs magistrate not to treat them as merits-based defenses. |
| Whether the court may dismiss based on such claims sua sponte or on motion | Government seeks to bar dismissal based on these claims or deem them waived. | Choi contends dismissal could be appropriate if claims have merit. | There is no basis to dismiss based on these claims; mandamus bars such sua sponte or motion-based dismissal. |
| Whether Choi waived these claims by Rule 12(b)(3) pretrial requirement | Waiver prior to trial is controlled by Rule 12(b)(3) and Armstrong/Washington logic. | Choi argues good cause could excuse waiver under Rule 12(e). | No good cause shown; waiver stands and magistrate must not consider the claims as grounds for dismissal. |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances | Exceptional circumstances justify mandamus to prevent misapplication of law and irreparable harm. | Choi may view mandamus as an extraordinary remedy; government must wait for review. | Mandamus appropriate to prevent potential improper acquittal/dismissal and enforce proper procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective/vindictive prosecution claims are not defenses on the merits)
- United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (selective prosecution is separate from guilt; relates to charging constitutionality)
- United States v. Jarrett, 447 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2006) (applies Armstrong to vindictive prosecution claims)
- Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (extraordinary remedy of mandamus; exceptional circumstances required)
- Banks v. Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, 471 F.3d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (mandamus relief requires careful consideration of equities and mechanisms)