United States v. Weeks

636 F.Supp.3d 117

UNITED STATES of America v. Bradley Wayne WEEKS, Defendant.

Case No. 21-cr-00247 (TFH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Signed October 14, 2022

Anne Veldhuis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-ATR, San Francisco, CA, Jamie Carter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Washington, DC, Kathryn E. Fifield, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-CRM, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Bryan E. DeMaggio, Matthew R. Kachergus, Sheppard, White, Kachergus & Demaggio, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, Maurice Belmont VerStandig, The Verstandig Law Firm, LLC, Potomac, MD, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS F. HOGAN, United States District Judge

Defendant Bradley Weeks ("Weeks") is charged by Indictment with one felony and four misdemeanors for his alleged participation in the storming of the United States Capitol building and the resultant disruption of the joint session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College vote count on January 6, 2021. See Indictment [ECF No. 17]. On June 27, 2022, Weeks filed a Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Indictment [ECF No. 53] ("Mot. to Dismiss") on various statutory and constitutional grounds. The government opposed the motion [ECF No. 60] ("Gov't Opp'n") and Weeks replied [ECF No. 66] ("Def. Reply").

On August 30, 2022, the Court heard arguments and issued oral rulings denying the motion to dismiss on the grounds that Weeks' alleged conduct does not fit within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) because the alleged obstructive conduct did not involve a document or tangible object, and that an "official proceeding" under § 1512(c)(2) must be adjudicatory or investigatory in nature. See Mot. to Dismiss at 6-15. The Court took under advisement Weeks' motion to dismiss on the basis that the Indictment fails to sufficiently state an offense because it does not specify what "official proceeding" before Congress was obstructed, influenced, and impeded. See id. at 3-6. Upon consideration, and for the reasons stated below, the Court rejects Weeks' arguments on those grounds and now denies the Motion to Dismiss Count One in its entirety.

I. Background and Procedural History¹

Following the Presidential Election in November 2020, Weeks began to join Facebook groups regarding the "Stop the Steal" rally and to exchange messages with others regarding his plans to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 for a "protest/revolution" with co-defendant Jonathan Daniel ("Danny") Carlton. See Gov't Opp'n at 1-3. Weeks and Carlton traveled to D.C. on January 5, 2021 and attended the Stop the Steal Rally on January 6, 2021. Id. at 3. At 1:00 p.m. on January 6, 2021, a Joint Session of the United States Congress convened in order to certify the vote of the Electoral College of the 2020 Presidential Election. See id. at 3; Statement of Facts at 1 [ECF No. 1-1]. A crowd began to form outside of the Capitol that eventually "overwhelmed law enforcement and scaled walls, smashed through barricades, and shattered windows to gain access to the interior of the Capitol[.]" Nassif, 628 F.Supp.3d at 176 (quoting Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 18 (D.C. Cir. 2021)). Weeks and Carlton arrived at the Capitol grounds around 2:00 p.m. Weeks proceeded to, amongst other actions, climb an overturned bike rack in order to access the balustrade of the northwest stairs and enter the Capitol building multiple times on the heels of the mob. See Gov't Opp'n at 11-18. Throughout these events, Weeks messaged his co-defendant and others and took videos and photos. See id. at 1-18. Members of Congress and the Vice President were forced to evacuate around 2:20 p.m. and could not reconvene until around 8:00 p.m. Statement of Facts at 1.

After January 6, the FBI received numerous tips from various informants that Weeks had posted a video documenting his actions in and around the Capitol building. Id. While the video was deleted from Weeks' Facebook page by the time law enforcement attempted to view it, one of the informants had downloaded a video in which Weeks is on the Upper West Terrace of the Capitol and declares, amongst other things, "We're taking back our country! This is our 1776!" Id. Law enforcement also obtained screenshots of a video posted to Weeks' Facebook page depicting the inside of the Capitol building. Id. Law enforcement was also provided with screenshots of messages that Weeks had sent to a reporter on January 6 stating that he was inside of the Capitol and had been pepper sprayed. Id.

Weeks was arrested on January 21, 2021. Arrest Warrant [ECF No. 13]. On March 24, 2021, a Grand Jury returned a five-count Indictment charging Weeks with: (1) Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2) and 2; (2) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); (3) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); (4) Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D); and (5) Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G). Indictment [ECF No. 17].²

II. Legal Standard

Before trial, a defendant may move to dismiss an indictment or count for various reasons, including "failure to state an offense." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B). When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must review the "face of the indictment." United States v. Sunia, 643 F. Supp. 2d 51, 60 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006)) (emphasis in original). "[T]he indictment must be viewed as a whole and the allegations must be accepted as true at this stage of the proceedings." United States v. Bowdoin, 770 F. Supp. 2d 142, 145 (D.D.C. 2011).

"The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and . . . [i]t need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). An indictment is constitutionally sufficient if it "first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). It is generally enough for an indictment to "echo[ ] the operative statutory text while also specifying the time and place of the offense." United States v. Williamson, 903 F.3d 124, 130 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The validity of an indictment does not hinge on "whether it could have been more definite and certain," and does not require the defendant to be apprised of "every means by which the prosecution hopes to prove that the crime was committed." Nassif, 628 F.Supp.3d at 184 (quoting United States v. Verrusio, 762 F.3d 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014) and United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 124 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc) (per curiam)).

III. Discussion

Weeks claims that Count One is constitutionally deficient under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it fails to provide adequate notice and protect against double jeopardy concerns. Specifically, he argues that Count One fails to state an offense because it does not specify what "official proceeding," i.e., the certification of the Electoral College vote, before Congress was obstructed, influenced, and impeded. Def. Mot. at 4-5. As set forth below, the Indictment's allegations "if proven, would be sufficient to permit a jury to find that the crimes charged were committed." Bowdoin, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 146. Because "even very concise charging documents may 'clear[ ] this low bar," see Nassif, 628 F.Supp.3d at 184 (citing United States v. Sargent, No. 21-cr-00258 (TFH), 2022 WL 1124817, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2022)), the Court finds that Count One sufficiently states an offense.

A. Statutory and Charging Language

18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) provides that "[w]hoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." An "official proceeding" is defined by statute to include "a proceeding before the Congress." 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1)(B).

Count One of the Indictment, charging Mr. Weeks with Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2) and 2, states:

On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, BRADLEY WAYNE WEEKS attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, by entering and remaining in the United States Capitol without authority committing an act of civil disorder, and engaging in disorderly and disruptive conduct.

Indictment at 1.

B. Count One Sets Forth Every Element of the Charged Offense

Weeks does not dispute that the charging language adopts the language of the statute and thus properly sets forth the elements of the offense. It is "well established" that an Indictment validly alleges the elements of the offense by echoing the operative statutory language. Haldeman, 559 F.2d at 123.

C. Count One Provides Adequate Notice

The crux of Weeks' argument is that Count One is inadequate because it does not specify what "official proceeding" he allegedly obstructed on January 6, 2021. However, Count One adequately informs Weeks of the charges against which he must defend and thus fulfills the "central purpose[ ]" of the indictment. Haldeman 559 F.2d at 123. The test is whether the Indictment's allegations, "if proven, would be sufficient to permit a jury to find that the crimes charged were committed." Bowdoin, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 146. While Weeks may feel the facts are not "particular" enough, "[n]o more is required." Nassif, 628 F.Supp.3d at 185.

Here, the allegations are sufficiently...