United States v. Moyer
674 F.3d 192
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Ramirez assault in Shenandoah, PA by local teens; Ramirez later died of that assault.
- Officers Nestor (Chief), Moyer (Lieutenant), and Hayes were investigated for falsifying documents; FBI later joined the probe.
- Count Two charged Nestor with knowingly falsifying official police reports to impede an FBI investigation; Count Five charged Moyer with false statements to the FBI.
- District court granted a bill of particulars partially but denied dismissal of Count Two and denied broader particulars; jury found Nestor guilty on Count Two and Moyer guilty on Count Five.
- District court and jury proceedings occurred between July 2008 and January 2011, with post-trial appeals challenging the indictment, evidentiary sufficiency, and §1519 vagueness.
- Appeals court affirmed the judgments and upheld the §1519 conviction and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bill of particulars was properly denied | Nestor: indictment vague; needed bill | Nestor: district court abused discretion | No abuse; indictment sufficiently detailed |
| Whether Count Two is duplicitous | Nestor: multiple statements in one count | Government: continuing course of conduct | Not duplicitous; May be read as single scheme |
| Whether the bill of particulars enforcement was proper | Nestor: inadequate FBI matter description | Government: §1519 broad, no further specifics required | District Court did not err in enforcement |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Nestor’s §1519 conviction | Evidence insufficient to prove knowing falsity, knowledge of FBI matter, nexus, and contemplation | Nestor: evidence supports conviction | Sufficient evidence supporting knowledge, intent, and contemplation to obstruct investigation |
| Constitutionality of §1519 as vague | §1519 vague as applied to Nestor | Statute gives fair warning; not vague in this case | Not unconstitutionally vague as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hodge, Hodge, 211 F.3d 74 (3d Cir. 2000) (indictment sufficiency and bill of particulars guidance)
- United States v. Urban, Urban, 404 F.3d 754 (3d Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for bill of particulars)
- United States v. Addonizio, Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49 (3d Cir. 1971) (indictment must define generalities with specifics)
- United States v. Root, Root, 585 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2009) (unit of prosecution; continuing course of conduct)
- United States v. Schmeltz, Schmeltz, 667 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2011) (§1519 does not require separate counts for each false entry in a document)
- United States v. Berardi, Berardi, 675 F.2d 894 (7th Cir. 1982) (one count may cover continuing offenses within a time frame)
- United States v. Yielding, Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (construes §1519 scope and knowledge element; no nexus requirement)
- United States v. Gray, Gray, 642 F.3d 371 (2d Cir. 2011) (§1519 covers conduct without requiring ongoing investigation)
- United States v. McKanry, McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2011) (false statements to FBI supported by record evidence)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (general principle on mens rea and vagueness in criminal statutes)