547 F.Supp.3d 409
S.D.N.Y.2021Background:
- Defendants are members/leaders of Lev Tahor, an insular religious community; leader Nachman Helbrans arranged a religious “marriage” of Minor‑1 as a minor.
- In November 2018 the Mother relocated with six children to New York; Kings County Family Court granted the Mother temporary sole custody on November 14, 2018.
- On December 8, 2018, Helbrans and others allegedly kidnapped two minors from a Woodridge, NY residence, transported them through airports using false identities, and removed them to Mexico; the minors were recovered later that month and several defendants were arrested upon return to the U.S.
- In March 2019 members allegedly attempted a second abduction of Minor‑1; Matityau Moshe Malka is accused of providing drop phones and drugs and was arrested in connection with that attempt.
- The Government indicted defendants under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA), charging multi‑object conspiracy and multiple substantive IPKCA counts; a Superseding Indictment (S2) expanded factual allegations and certain overt acts.
- Defendants raised pretrial motions (vagueness challenges to IPKCA terms, dismissals based on removal/abduction, duplicity, bill of particulars, grand jury review, and various disclosure orders); the court denied the motions (some denied with prejudice, other disclosure requests denied without prejudice as premature).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “parental rights” phrase in IPKCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Government: IPKCA covers parental rights arising by court order or operation of law; Mother had court‑ordered custody | Defendants: “Parental rights” ambiguous/vague and should be defined by habitual residence or not apply here | Court: Rejects vagueness; parental rights under court order plainly apply and statute covers conduct here |
| Whether phrase “has been in the United States” is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Government: Minors lived in U.S. with intent to relocate and were in U.S. for ~a month before abduction, so statute applies | Defendants: Phrase lacks temporal clarity; could be ambiguous for short visits | Court: Rejects challenge; comparable Second Circuit precedents (salient multi‑month residencies) show statute clearly proscribes this conduct; one‑month and intention to relocate suffice |
| Dismissal based on Helbrans’ alleged forcible removal from Mexico without lawful process | Gov: Alvarez‑Machain/Federal precedent allow trial despite forcible abduction | Helbrans: Removal without lawful process bars prosecution | Court: Denies dismissal; abduction/forcible return does not prohibit trial (Alvarez‑Machain, Frisbie controlling) |
| Whether Matityau’s provision of phones/drugs supports an IPKCA "attempt" count | Gov: Attempt requires intent + substantial step; providing phones/drugs can be substantial step | Matityau: Supplying phones does not equal attempted kidnapping; insufficient as matter of law | Court: Denies motion; indictment adequately alleges attempt and sufficiency challenges premature for pretrial dismissal |
| Whether the IPKCA conspiracy count is duplicitous (multi‑object conspiracy) | Gov: Single multi‑object conspiracy may be charged; indictment alleges agreement and overt acts | Defendants: Combining distinct conspiracies/objects prejudicial and duplicitous | Court: Denies challenge; multi‑object conspiracy is permissible and defendants show no specific prejudice |
| Requests for bills of particulars (Mayer & Jacob Rosner) | Defendants: Need specifics on roles, documents, acts to prepare defense | Gov: Indictment plus extensive discovery and cooperation answers provide sufficient notice | Court: Denies bills of particulars; information in indictment/discovery adequate |
| Request for in camera review of grand jury minutes | Defendants: Alleged presentation of misleading evidence, mistranslations, flawed instructions, non‑disclosure of Hague proceedings | Gov: No basis to pierce grand jury secrecy | Court: Denies request—defendant’s claims are speculative and not the particularized showing required to breach secrecy |
| Pretrial orders compelling Brady/Giglio/3500/404(b)/trial‑exhibit disclosures | Defendants: Early, specific production necessary for defense | Gov: Will comply with obligations and produce materials in time; protective order in place; some materials governed by Jencks/3500 timing | Court: Denies as premature without trial date (Brady/Giglio/3500/404(b)/exhibits) but accepts Government’s representations; co‑conspirator identity/statements disclosure denied with prejudice (not required absent trial testimony) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Resendiz‑Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) (indictment constitutional requirements)
- United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (indictment may track statutory language; time/place in approximate terms)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (indictment must inform accused of specific offense)
- United States v. D'Amelia, 683 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2012) (indictment need only charge the core of criminality)
- United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003) (vagueness/as‑applied challenge framework)
- United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1997) (IPKCA interpretation; habitual‑residence analysis)
- United States v. Houtar, 980 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2020) (rejecting vagueness and discussing temporal reach of "has been in the United States")
- Williams v. United States, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (void‑for‑vagueness standards)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (fair notice and standards for vagueness)
- United States v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2018) (court orders supply parental rights under IPKCA)
- United States v. Ventre, 338 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2003) (parallel Hague and IPKCA prosecutions permissible)
- Alvarez‑Machain v. United States, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) (forcible abduction does not bar trial)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952) (same principle)
- Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942) (single agreement is the crime in conspiracy prosecutions)