87 F. Supp. 3d 737
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Six Philadelphia police officers were indicted in July 2014 on RICO conspiracy and related offenses; relevant defendants here are John Speiser and Linwood Norman.
- Speiser is charged in Count 1 (RICO conspiracy) and Count 26 (falsification of records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519); Norman is charged in Count 1 and Count 23 (§ 1519).
- The indictment lists 22 overt-act "episodes"; Speiser is alleged to have participated in episodes 13, 17, and 22; Count 26 stems from episode 22 (alleged seizure of $3,900 and omission in report).
- Speiser moved to quash Count 1 (arguing evidentiary insufficiency), Count 26 (arguing jurisdictional defect, that § 1519 does not cover omissions, and vagueness), and for a bill of particulars; Norman joined on Count 23.
- The Court held that a pretrial motion cannot be used to challenge evidentiary sufficiency (DeLaurentis), found the § 1519-based counts properly invoke federal jurisdiction, ruled omissions can fall within § 1519 and the statute is not unconstitutionally vague here, and denied the bill of particulars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to quash Count 1 (RICO conspiracy) | Speiser: grand jury/disclosed evidence does not support charges against him | Government: sufficiency is for trial; pretrial dismissal improper absent stipulated record | Denied — pretrial challenge to evidentiary sufficiency barred by Third Circuit precedent (DeLaurentis) |
| Jurisdiction for § 1519 count (Count 26/23) | Speiser: alleged falsification relates to ordinary theft, not a matter within federal agency jurisdiction | Government: § 1519 does not require a pending federal investigation; alleged falsification is part of federal RICO predicate acts | Denied — Court has jurisdiction because the acts are tied to the alleged federal RICO enterprise |
| Whether § 1519 covers omissions (failure to state an offense) | Speiser: omission (failing to report seizure) is not a "false entry" under § 1519; fair-warning principle precludes expanding statute to omissions | Government: statute phrased broadly; circuit and district decisions have applied § 1519 to omissions or analogous statutes; legislative history supports broad reach | Denied — Court holds omissions can constitute a § 1519 violation; statute gives fair warning given scienter and breadth of proscribed conduct |
| Vagueness challenge to § 1519 | Speiser: statute is vague because it could allow ex post facto federal review of any report and punish omissions unpredictably | Government: scienter (knowingly and intent to impede) limits reach and prevents criminalizing innocent conduct | Denied — scienter requirement cures vagueness; ordinary officers can understand conduct proscribed |
| Bill of particulars | Speiser: indictment and discovery insufficient to avoid unfair surprise; needs specifics of government's proof | Government: 42‑page indictment describes enterprise, pattern, and 90 overt acts; extensive discovery produced | Denied — indictment adequately informs defense; discovery available; bill of particulars not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DeLaurentis, 230 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 2000) (pretrial dismissal for evidentiary insufficiency is impermissible absent a stipulated record)
- United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2012) (§ 1519 applies where falsifications relate to matters within federal jurisdiction; omissions covered in context)
- United States v. Bergrin, 650 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing facial sufficiency of an indictment)
- United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2007) (requirements for an indictment to be facially sufficient)
- United States v. Yakou, 393 F.3d 231 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (examples of courts dismissing charges pretrial where facts undisputed and government does not object)
- United States v. Schmeltz, 667 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming § 1519 conviction based on omissions)