Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10-03-2016 ECF 712 USA V RYAN PAYNE - MOTION To Dismiss Re Superseding Indictment Counts 10, 11 and 12
10-03-2016 ECF 712 USA V RYAN PAYNE - MOTION To Dismiss Re Superseding Indictment Counts 10, 11 and 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
RENE L. VALLADARES
Federal Public Defender
Nevada State Bar No. 11479
WILLIAM CARRICO
Nevada State Bar No. 003042
Assistant Federal Public Defender
BRENDA WEKSLER
Nevada State Bar No. 8124
Assistant Federal Public Defender
RYAN NORWOOD
Assistant Federal Public Defender
411 E. Bonneville Avenue, Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 388-6577/Phone
(702) 388-6261/Fax
[email protected]
Attorneys for Ryan W. Payne
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
vs.
RYAN W. PAYNE,
Defendant.
)
)
Case No. 2:16-cr-046-GMN-PAL
)
DEFENDANT RYAN W. PAYNES
)
) MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING
) INDICTMENT COUNTS 10, 11 AND 12
)
)
)
)
)
19
20
21
COMES NOW defendant Ryan W. Payne, through his counsel, WILLIAM CARRICO,
22
RYAN NORWOOD, and BRENDA WEKSLER, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, and
23
moves this Court for an order dismissing Counts 10, 11, and 12 of the Superseding Indictment.
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Defendant Ryan Payne seeks an Order from this Court dismissing several counts of the
superseding indictment. ECF No. 27, pp. 47-49 (Mar. 2, 2016). Counts 10, 11 and 12 charge
Mr. Payne and others with obstructing the due administration of justice under 18 U.S.C.
1503 and 2. Id. at pp. 47-49. For the reasons explained herein, each of these counts must be
dismissed.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
The allegations in this case are narrated in detail in the superseding indictment, which
explains that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planned to seize and remove co-
10
defendant Cliven Bundys trespassing cattle from public lands in Bunkerville, Nevada, pursuant
11
to a civil court order issued in 2013. ECF No. 27, p. 9. In the underlying Bundy civil case, the
12
district court enjoined Cliven Bundy from trespassing on the specified public lands and
13
permitted the United States to seize and remove to impound any trespassing cattle. Order, ECF
14
No. 56, United States v. Bundy, 2:98-cv-00531-LRH-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 9, 2013). To enforce
15
the civil order, BLM entered into a contract with a civilian contractor in Utah to round-up and
16
gather the trespassing cattle. ECF No. 27, 43. Allegedly, [i]t was part of the plan that BLM
17
would use BLM and NPS Rangers, Officers, and Special Agents to provide security for
18
impoundment operations, including securing the cattle at the Impoundment Site and protecting
19
the civilian contractors and government employees engaged in impoundment operations. Id.
20
at 46. But, according to the government, armed gunmen thwarted those plans from being
21
22
Mr. Payne is charged with various counts in the Superseding Indictment. Relevant here,
23
he is charged with three counts of obstructing the due administration of justice by impeding or
24
threatening to impede the execution of federal court orders to impound cattle in three
25
instances:
26
3
Count 10 alleges Mr. Payne (along with Cliven Bundy, Ryan Bundy,
Ammon Bundy, Peter Santilli, and David Bundy) threatened to
impede the execution of federal Court Orders when R. Bundy, D.
Bundy, and others working with them, attempted to impede and
obstruct a BLM convoy at or near Nevada State Route 160 while the
convoy was engaged in impoundment operations, on or about April
6, 2014. ECF No. 27, 174.
Count 11 alleges Mr. Payne (along with Cliven Bundy, Ryan Bundy,
Ammon Bundy, Peter Santilli, and Melvin Bundy) threatened force
and violence and used force and violence to impede and thwart the
execution of federal Court Orders, in that the defendants did impede
and obstruct, and attempt to impede and obstruct, a BLM convoy
while it was engaged in impoundment operations near Nevada State
Route 170 on or about April 9, 2014. ECF No. 27, 176.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ARGUMENT
Counts 10, 11, and 12 should be dismissed with prejudice because Mr. Payne cannot be
guilty of obstructing the due administration of justice.
19
The alleged conduct falls outside the ambit of 18 U.S.C. 1503 as this
statute requires a nexus to a pending judicial proceeding and only
applies to acts similar in nature to interfering with witnesses and
jurors.
20
The charging statute, 18 U.S.C. 1503, applies to certain kinds of conduct aimed at
21
jurors, witnesses, and officers of federal courts, or conduct that obstructs the due
22
18
23
24
25
26
A.
18 U.S.C. 1503(a) (emphasis added). The alleged obstructive conduct in this case lacks the
requisite nexus in time, causation, or logic with thator any otherjudicial proceeding
2
3
4
5
10
The government appears to allege Mr. Paynes conduct falls within the catch-all
11
provision of 1503 (italicized above). Known as the omnibus clause, this language was
12
designed to proscribe all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice. United States v.
13
Bonds, 784 F.3d 582, 583 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., concurring).
14
Moreover, 1503 has a nexus requirementthe act must have a relationship in time,
15
causation, or logic with judicial proceedings. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 599-600
16
(1995) (citations omitted). In other words, the endeavor must have the natural and probable
17
effect of interfering with the due administration of justice. Id. at 599 (citation omitted).
18
The action taken by the accused must be with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury
19
proceedings; it is not enough that there be an intent to influence some ancillary proceeding,
20
such as an investigation independent of the courts or grand jurys authority. Id. (citing United
21
States v. Brown, 688 F.2d 596, 598 (9th Cir. 1982). Section 1503 cannot be construed to
22
proscribe conduct which takes place wholly outside the context of an ongoing judicial or quasi-
23
judicial proceeding. Brown, 688 F.2d at 598. Accordingly, in Aguilar, the Supreme Court
24
held that uttering false statements to an investigating agent who might or might not testify
25
before a grand jury is not obstruction under 1503. Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 600. In Brown, the
26
5
Ninth Circuit held interfering with the execution of a search warrant is not obstruction under
Here, the government cannot meet the nexus requirement. The governments allegations
that Mr. Payne impeded and obstructed a BLM convoy in April of 2014 lack a requisite nexus
to any pending judicial proceeding. The civil Bundy case was complete in October of 2013,
when the district court issued a permanent injunction against Cliven Bundy. BLMs cattle
round-up was not even an ancillary proceeding within the meaning of the statuteit was
government action taken some time after the granting of a civil court order. Counts 10, 11, and
10
Moreover, 18 U.S.C. 1503 does not encompass all obstructive conduct and must be
11
strictly construed. Haili v. United States, 260 F.2d 744, 745 (9th Cir. 1958); see also Bonds,
12
784 F.3d at 584. While many matters other than proceedings pending in court are related to the
13
administration of justice, the Ninth Circuit has long-held the phrase due administration of
14
justice in the omnibus clause is limited by the prior enumeration of specific judicial functions
15
in the statute. Haili, 260 F.2d at 745-46; see also United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 851
16
(9th Cir. 1981) (explaining Haili court holding). Therefore, the omnibus clause only applies to
17
acts similar in nature to interfering with witnesses and jurors. Haili, 260 F.2d at 745-46.
18
The particularly defined instances of violation of [18 U.S.C. 1503(a)] all relate to
19
20
pending case and which would disturb the ordinary and proper functions of the court. Haili,
21
260 F.2d at 746. Accordingly, interfering with the terms of anothers probation is not an
22
interference with the due administration of justice within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 745-
23
46 (reversing conviction). Nor would impeding an FBI investigation violate 18 U.S.C. 1503.
24
Haili, 260 F.2d at 745 (citing United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621 (W.D. Pa.
25
1956)); Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 622 (The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an investigating
26
agency rather than a judicial arm of the government. It does not administer justice within the
6
meaning of Section 1503.). Nor would encouraging a prisoner to escape from a penitentiary
violate the statute. Haili, 260 F.2d at 746. Although investigating crimes and supervising
convicted prisoners are part of the administration of justice in a general way, the statute cannot
be given such a very wide meaning to encompass those types of conduct. Id. By contrast,
in 18 U.S.C. 1503. Rasheed, 663 F.2d at 852. The destruction or concealment of subpoenaed
documents results in the improper suppression of evidence, and thus the influencing,
obstructing and impeding of judicial proceedings, just as much as does the intimidation of a
10
Here, the obstructive acts alleged in Counts Ten, Eleven, and Twelve are clearly not
11
similar in nature to the specific acts set forth in 18 U.S.C. 1503(a). The government alleges
12
on or about April 6, 9, and 12, 2014, Mr. Payne impeded and obstructed a BLM convoy
13
executing 2013 federal court orders to impound cattle. Impeding BLM from gathering cattle is
14
15
16
convoy is not conduct designed to interfere with the process of arriving at an appropriate
17
judgment in a pending case. See Haili, 260 F.2d at 746. The civil Bundy case was long over
18
appropriate judgment was issued in 2013 when the permanent injunction was granted. Thus,
19
there was no process in a pending case with which to interfere. Nor is gathering cattle an
20
ordinary and proper function[] of the court. See Haili, 260 F.2d at 746. The BLM, like the
21
FBI, does not administer justice within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1503. Section 1503
22
proscribes conduct that obstructs the administration of justicenot the post hoc enforcement
23
of civil orders.
24
B.
25
The Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed the limited scope of 18 U.S.C. 1503 in United
26
States v. Bonds, 784 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). In Bonds, the defendant, a professional
7
baseball player, was convicted of obstructing justice after he gave a rambling, non-responsive
answer to a question about his suspected steroid use in a grand jury proceeding. Bonds, 784
F.3d at 572 (per curiam). The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction, finding insufficient
In the principal concurrence, the Bonds Court explained why the statutes omnibus
clause requires prudential limitations. Bonds, 784 F.3d at 583-86 (Kozinski, J., concurring).
The amorphous nature of the statute is . . . at odds with the constitutional requirement that
individuals have fair notice as to what conduct may be criminal. Id. at 584-85. Because the
statute sweeps so broadly, due process calls for prudential limitations on the governments
10
power to prosecute under it. Id. at 585. In the context of threatening statements made under
11
1503, one such prudential limitation is the requirement that the statement be material. Id.
12
(citing United States v. Thomas, 612 F.3d 1107, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2010)).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
26
The Bonds court reversed Bonds conviction in a short per curiam opinion, and issued
four separate concurrences and one dissent. Bonds, 784 F.3d 572. The concurring opinions
agreed Bonds statement was not material to sustain a conviction, but for different reasons.
8
Here, the government alleges Mr. Payne and others obstructed the due administration
of justice by making threatening communications. ECF No. 27, pp. 47-49. The superseding
indictment does not specify what those threatening communications were. If the threatening
communications were statements, the government must prove materialitythat the statements
had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the
decisionmaking body. Bonds, 784 F.3d at 584 (quoting Kungys, 485 U.S. at 770). For the
same reasons articulated above, the government cannot prove this element. In April of 2014,
there was no decisionmaking body to influence as the Bundy civil judgment was issued in
2013. Nor do BLM workers constitute a decisionmaking body for purposes of the statute.
10
On the other hand, if there is no materiality requirement, due process calls for
11
prudential limitations on the governments power to prosecute under 1503. Bonds, 784 F.3d
12
at 585. Particularly in a case like this, where the government alleges eighteen people with
13
myriad conduct over three days, the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. Such a vast
14
interpretation of the statute violates Mr. Paynes due process rights, and the counts should be
15
dismissed.
16
CONCLUSION
17
Counts 10, 11, and 12 lack the requisite nexus to a judicial proceeding within the
18
meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1503. Impeding a BLM convoy is completely unrelated to the judicial
19
process of arriving at an appropriate judgment in a pending case and the ordinary and proper
20
judicial functions of the court. The conduct alleged in Counts 10, 11, and 12 clearly fall outside
21
the scope of 18 U.S.C. 1503. Accordingly, those counts should be dismissed for failure to
22
23
Should the Court step away from Ninth Circuit precedent requiring the obstructive
24
conduct be similar in nature to juror intimidation, Counts 10, 11, and 12 should still be
25
26
9
Dismissing these counts requires the Court to strike (1) the allegation Mr. Payne
conspired to commit Obstruction of the Due Administration of Justice, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1503 in Count One (ECF No. 27, p. 38); (2) the allegations in
6
7
Respectfully submitted,
RENE VALLADARES
Federal Public Defender
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
10
The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee of the Federal Public Defender
for the District of Nevada and is a person of such age and discretion as to be competent to
serve papers.
5
6
That on October 3, 2016, she served an electronic copy of the above and foregoing
DEFENDANT RYAN W. PAYNES MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING
7
8
9
INDICTMENT COUNTS 10, 11 AND 12 by electronic service (ECF) to the person named
below:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
ERIN M. CREEGAN
Assistant United States Attorney
NADIA JANJUA AHMEN
Assistant United States Attorney
NICHOLAS DICKINSON
Assistant United States Attorney
STEVEN MYHRE
Assistant United States Attorney
501 Las Vegas Blvd. South
Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89101
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11