Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 1 of 26

UM TED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.20-80063-CR-M 1DDLEBRO0KS

UNITED STATES OF AX RICA,

Plaintiff,

BART GERA RD G A TZ,

Defendant.
/

ORDER ON M OTION TO DISV SS INDICTM ENT

Nearly threeyearsafterthe statute oflimitationsexpired forDefendantBM Gerard Gatz's

alleged crimes,the Governmentindicted bim .Dr.Gatz had been tmderinvestigation forcloseto

5ve yearswhen the COVlD-19 pandemichit.Astim ewmsaboutto nm outto bdng charges,no

FandjurieswereconveënginthisdisG ct.Inalmst-ditchefforttosalvagtitscmse,theGovemment
decidedtocarryoutsomethingofaploy- itbypassedthegrandjury,andtheDefendant'sdghtto
an indic% ent,and insteadfiled whatwmslabeled an tilnform ation''threedaysbeforethedeadline,

on a Friday everling.And then itmsked m e to dismiss thatsam e Inform ation a few dayslater,

withoutprejudice.
'FheGovem ment'sgoalin thesem aneuveringswaseffedivelyto availitselfofasix-m onth

extension ofthestatuteoflimitationspursllnnttoanexceptioncontninedwithin 18U.S.C.j3288.

Butwhen itfiledtheKlrlformation,''theGovem mentwmsfully aw arethatDr.Gatzdidnotconsent

to waiving hisFifth Amendmentrightto indic% entby a grandjury,which isrequiredtobe an

eFective charging insm lment.Idid notagree with thesetactics.1viewed itasan improperend-

nm m'
otmdthestamteoflimitations,andIenteredadisnlissalwithprejudice.
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 2 of 26

Thematterlsbackbeforemenow becausetheGovemmentappealedmypriorruling,and

theEleventhCircuitreversed.'Fhepanelheldthatmy dismissal* 111prejudicewmsimproperand

remanded forfurtherproceedings.n ereafter,Dr.Gatz could arguethattheGovem mentviolated

the statuteoflimitations.Butthatdetermination could notbe made,the panelsaid,whilethe case

wasin thepostureofaRule 48 dismissal.So,afterthem andateissued,the Govem mentindicted

Dr.Gatz.And now hehasfiled aM otion to Dism isson stamteoflimitationsgrotmds.

Iwillp antDr.Gatz'smotion and dismissthe Superseding Indic% ent.Thisofcoursewill

$
come asno surpdse,asmy priororderforetold tllisvery result.However,in thatorder,the stamte

: ofbmlutionsanalysiswmsincluded ms ameans ofexplainlng why dismissalwith prejudice,I

thought,waswarranted tmderRule48.Now,Defendant'sstatuteoflimitationsdefenseissqlmrely

beforeme.ThePartieshavefully bdefed it,and Iheld oralargumentonNovem ber29,2023.Aher

C'
7
t full consideration of their positions,and upon careful exnm ination of applicable sumtes and
h
t-
(
.
f'
': governing law,IwillreaFlrm and adoptmy prior reasoning,and 5nd that the Government's
.
)t
.
E
ij
t
;.
':
Supersedinglndic% entwastmtimely.
i
' BACKGROUN D
'
'
)
E
OnFriday,August28,2020,theGovernmentfiledan Information chargingDefendantw1t.
11
)
1
.
.
)
t
r
(
i
. two felony offenses arising out of his alleged participation in a conspiracy to receive illegal
)
-
..

è
(
)
' dtckbacks''(1 thefo= offeesforspenkingengagements)gom aprescriptiondrugdisibutorin
(y
)
f
. exchange forDefendant's allegedly im properwriting ofprescdptions for aparticular dnlg.n e
)'
t
.b
lnformation wmsdocketed with theClerk ofCourton Fdday,August28,2020.(DE 3 at4-11).
.
. )
)
'
;
:
t n elnform ation statesthatDefendantcom ml
.ttedthealleged offensesfrom August2012 to August

è
7
'
)
- 31 2015.(za at4,14).Three dayslater,on the date thatthe statuteoflimitationsexpired,the
( '
/
) GovernmentservedtheDefendantwiththeInformation at6:33PM in theevening.(DE 37at2).
.
'
)(
,
'
.. .
,
t
j
y
.
j
,
.

(
,
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 3 of 26

Defendanthadatnotimeconsentedtoprosecution byinform ationorwaived hisrighttoindice ent

by aFandjury.(f: at18).Moreover,Defendant'sintentionsintilisregardweremadeknownto
theGovernmentbeforeitchosetoproceedbywayofinformation. 1
@

Twodayslater,theGovernmentsoughtdismissalwithoutprejudice,tmderFederalRuleof
CriminalProcedure48(a).(DE 8).n eGovemment'spositionwasthatitslmilateralfilingofthe
Inform ation served to ûtinstitute''theprosecution againstDefendantbeforethe five yearswmsup

tmder18U.S.C.j3282(a),anditssubsequentdismissalwouldM ggerthetollingofthestatuteof
$

,
limiutionsby sixmonthsunder18U.S.C.j3282.
.

A11ofthishad been done agnlnstthe backdrop ofthe COVID-19 pandem ic.Atthe time,
.

grandjuriesin the Southem DistrictofFloddahad been suspended.lIn movingto dismissthe

r lnformation,theGovemmentassertedthatitintendedtoobtn.
lnagrandjury Indic% entuponsuch
è
'
è
. timeasitwasable,whengrandjuriesreconvened.
;
i
E
.
.
,
E
t
r
7
5 I had som e misgivings about the Government's methods, so 1 ordered supplemental
k
)
r
: briefmg,heldoralargllm ent,and ultim ately deniedtheGovem m entNsrequestthatthedism issalbe
t
.
'
)
t
.

'
withoutprejudice.Instead,Idismissedwithprejudiceupon findingthattheGovemment'stactical
'
y
(
)
.
t
.
use ofRule48,forthespecitk pup oseofevadingthestatuteoflim iutions,wasan imperm issible
(
)
i efrortto cirolm ventthe law .And allowing theGovernm entto obtain adism issalby thesem enns
)
r
.
)
(
,
.
'
wouldhaveinvitedlmlawfulaction,Ibelieved,becausethestatutehadexpired,andthereforeno
.
'
)
.
)
k
u
. '
furtherprosecution cotlld behad.
..

)
t
'
t OnN ovember22,2022,adivided paneloftheEleventh Circlzitvacatedmy dismissalorder
y'
)
êr
,
andremanded.UnitedStatesv.W.G.G.,53F.4th 1353,1370(11t11Cir.2022).n ecourtheldthat
.
t:
q
..
k
j in dismissing * 111prejudice,Ifailed to makea fmding thatthe Governmentr
jsreasonsforthe
.
t
.7
)
.'
(
)y
.
:
)
.
@
E
)
:
..

.
' è 1Grandjuriesweresuspended9om M arch26,2020,toNovember17,2020.
t'
)
(y
'
f
3
)
!

t
l
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 4 of 26

dismissalamotmted to bad faith,which isrequired to overcome the presllm ption ofgood faith to

which the Govem mentisentitled tmderRule42.M at1369-70.n erefore,theEleventh Circuit

vacated my orderofdismissal,which leftthe lzlformation in effect,and the courtremanded for

' furtherproceedingsagainstDefendant.ThemandateissuedonJanuary 31,2023.(DE 27).

.
On July 13, 2023,the Governm ent filed a sealed ttsuperseding Indice ent,, agmns
.
t
'
j
Defendant.(DE 30).The Govtrnment thereafter moved to dismiss the lnformation without
r
' prejudice.(DE 32).MyOrderonRemanddeniestheM otiontoDismisstheInformationforlack

ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction (DE 52).

)
,
BeforemeistheDefendant'sM otion toDismissIndic% ent,tsled August4,2023,(DE
j
37),to wllichtheGovemmentresponded andtheDefendantreplied (DE 42,DE 47).Fora11the
'
!
)
;
?
,
reasonsbelow,Ifmd thatthelndice entwmstmtim ely and willgrantthe Defendant'sM otion to
:
t
l
2
(
i
2 oismiss.

tl DISCUSSION
,
'
:
i(
.
)
'

'
' A . The G overnm ent's Stratea
.)
.
èp
'
l Beforeanswering thequestion ofwhethertheGovem ment'sSuperseding Indice entwas
'k
.
t
E
6 timely,here are the mechanicsofhow the Governmentproposesto usethe Rulesand statutesto
q
)
E
)'
.

i
:
'.
claim thatittimely EledtheIndic% ent.
v
1
'.
t
.
'' n eFifthAmendmentto theUrlited SltesConstitution provides:ûtN operson shallbeheld
(
)
.
'
t
t to answerforacapital,orotherwise infsm ouscrime,lmlesson a presen% entorindice entofa
Ey GrandJury.''U.S.Const.amend.V.FedeY RuleofCriminalProcedure7(a)tGgiveseffectto''this
'

t
)
constitutionalprovision by requiring thatfelonies,defmed ms offenses pmishable by death or
t
L,
' imprisonmentofmore than oneyear,ûtbeprosecuted by an indic% ent''Fed.R.Cn'm.P.7(a)
)
1 (quoting 1944 advisory committee's note to subdivision (a)).As an exception to tllis Rule,
j
2!
..

j
'
f.)
t
)
.
) 4
è
(
.
y
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 5 of 26

subdivision 7(b) allows the govemment to charge noncapitalfelony offenses by way ofan
informationifthedefendantwaivesindic% ent.Fed.R.Crim.P.7(b).Title18,UrlitedStatesCode, !
Section 3282provides:çtgNlo person shallbeprosecuted,tried,orplmished forany offense,not
capiul,llnlesstheindice entisfound ortheinformation isinstituted within5veyearsnex'
tafter
such offenseshallhavebeencommitted.''18U.S.C.j32824$ (emphasisadded).
There isno disputethatthe statute oflimitationsto bdng acase agninstDr.Gatzexp/ed
'

on August31,2020.And thereisno dispute thatthe Govem mentdid notindictDefendanttmtil

i
,
;
y nerly eightyearsafterthatdate.Butthe Governm entarguesthatthiscase can proceed becauseit
.

k filed an (çlnfb= ation''on August28,2020- three days before the five-year deadline expired.

$ However,forthe Governmentto proceed by information under subdivision 7(b),the charged

?l
i
..
)
,
Defendantmustwaivehisrighttoag'
randjuryindicu ent.SeeFed.R.Cdm.P.7(b)(ûçAnolense
(
!
.
E
'
(
.
)
.
Ilnishable by imprisonm entfor more th% one yearm ay be prosecuted by information if the
L
.
P
L;
.

)
t defendant- inopen courtand afterbeingadvisedofthenatureofthecharge and ofthedefendant's
.
k
.

$
j rights-waives prosecution by indic% ent.n). Here, the Govemment purported to charge
.
y
)
i
t.
;) DefendantbyInformationwithouthavingreceivedsuchawaiver,andmoreover,whileknowing
(.
..
.

t
j
-
.
) thatitwould notlaterreceiveawaiver.
'

t.
)
.

'
n e legalsignifcance,ifany,ofthe unconsented Inform ation agninstthe Defendantisat
,

t. the heart of this M otion to Dismiss.That is because the validity of the Inform ation that the
)
:
l
J Governmentfiled bearsdirectly upontheapplicability ofan exception to thesuttzteoflim itations,
.
è
ô
l
.'
'
L
.L
.
$
'
wbich is contained in Title 18,United States Code, Section 3288.That stattzte enables the
!
à.
) Governm enttotollthelim itationsperiod in thefollowing scenado:
..
(
,, ..
C
'
) W henever an indica ent or l'nf-
onnation charging a felony is
1 t dismissed for any remson after the period prescribed by the
,' . .
t .
applicablesuttzteofllmltationshmsexpired,anew indic% entmay
'
7
l
y be returned in the appropriate judsdiction within six caiendar
(
t.
.y
.
)t
: j

(;
.
$
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 6 of 26

monthsofthedate ofdism issaloftheindictm entorinfo= ation,0r,

in theeventofan appeal,within 60 daysofthedate ofthedismissal
of the indic% entor inform ation becomes Enal,or,if no regular
grandjury isin session in the appropriatejurisdiction when the
indice entorinformation isdismissed,within six calendarmonths
ofthedatewhenthenextregulargrandj- isconvened,whichnew
indictm entshallnotbe barred by any statute oflim iutions.This
section doesnotpermitthefilingofanew indic% entorinformation
where the rec on for the dislnissal was the failure to file the
7
indictm ent or information witltin the period prescribed by the
,
applicablestatuteoflimitations,orsom eotherremsonthatwouldbar
anew prosecution.

18U.S.c.j3288.
W iththesestatutoryprovisionsinm ind,theGovernmentfiledtheunconsentedInform ation
q

' Gtotinstittzte'itwithinthemeaningof18U.S.C.j3282(a).''(DE 8at1-2).W ith theprosecution

)
.
,
t tmderway,atlemstintheGovemment,sview,itcouldthenavailitselfofj3288,stollingprovisions
)
.
; byobtniningaRule48dismissalofthedefectiveInfbrmation,withoutprejudice.
''
ë
)
p
ê
1
.
B. The M eaninz ofa Instituted.yr
.
t
.
.

'
W hetherthe Governm ent'sIndic% entistim ely turnsuponthem esning oftçinstituted''ms
)
9
i
5;'
1
.
#
,
itappearsin U.S.C.j 3282,forifthe Information wmsnevertv stituted,''therewould be no
;?.
)
) charging documentto voltmtnnl
.y disxnissunderj 3288 so msto buy the Govemmentsix more
I
..
k

'
@
f
'
monthstoseekapandjuryindice ent.
.
k
t Atthe outset,italso bears emphmsizing the well-settled rule thatcriminalstatutes of
'r
4
.'
y
?
( 'm '
. ll ltationstçare to beliberally intep reted in favorofrepose.''Toussie v.United States,397 U.S.
)
7
t
)
. 112 115(1970)(internalcitationomitted) Thisprinciplealir swith thefundam entalpurposeof
.
.
(
'
.
è !
,
(
'
j
ï statutesoflimitations,nsm ely 1%o protectindividllslsâom having to defend them selves against
,
,2
(
;
b chargeswhen thebasic factsmay havebecome obscured by the p% sageoftime and to mlnlmlze
t
..
.

y.
(
j
)
.
:
.
thednmageofoflk ialpm l
jsbm entbecauseofactsinthefar-dislnntpast.,
, jId.at114-15.Iam also
j,
rr
/
(
.
t guided by the generalprinciple thatRlwlhen doubtexistsaboutthe statute oflimitationsin a
%
7
y
'j
.
j
? 6
'
y
;
5
:'
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 7 of 26

criminalcmse,thelimitationsperiod should be construed in favorofthe defendnnt''United States

v.Gilbert,126 F.3d 1451,1454 (111 Cir.1998)(quoting UnitedStatesvHabig,390U.S.222,

22* 27(1968$.
lnow hold,msIdid in the flrstdism issalorder,thattheunconsented Information did not
(
tollthestatuteoflimiutions.Thefling ofan information isnotthesnmeasinstituting it.The
ë comm ondefmition ofSlinstimte''is$%ooriginateand getestablished''ortoiçto setgoing.''Institute,
'

.
(
M errinm -W ebster's Online Dictionary 2023, https://wwm merrinm-

webster.coe dictiono /instimte.Black'sLaw Dictionary defnesttinstitute''ast%o begin orstart;

.
'
commence.''Institute,Black'sLaw Dictionary (101 ed.2009).Inkeeping *4t11thesecommon-
.
senseideas,Ifmd thatttinstitute''m eansthatthe charging instm mentmustbeacnlnlly capableof
)
1 commencing afederalcrim l
'nalcase. Arll
'nform ation charging afelony offense,iftmaccom panied
;
by awaiverofindic% ent, csnnot com m ence a cnm
'l'nalcase. As Defendantpointsout,such an
tj
)
t fhnf
. brmationN,isqkl
.n to labeling apiece Ofpaperan untjujnwujj,wjjau jjwasuojjssued yy a
y
j.
è
)
t 5.a11djury.(oE sy at9).
'

)
.
,
) 1. TheSupremeCbvr/'.
çInterpretation of G7àJW/zz:e#''inaSimilarxçzwzzz/r.),Conta t
yy
:
(
)
..

t
y
'
In UnitedStatesv.Jaben,381U.S.214,217-220(1965),theSupremeCourtanalyzedthe
)
i(
q
' menningofttisinstimted,''languageidenticaltothatatissuehere.NoneoftheJusticesagreedwith
;;'b
E,
)
? the arplmentnow madeby the Government.
r!:.
t
:
f
.

)
..
Jabeninvolvedthesix-yearsuttzteoflimiutionsonthefelonyofwillfullyattemptingto
j,
ls
) evadefederalincometaxes.Thesuttztecontalnedaprovisoextendingthellmltationspedodfo<
(
t ninemonthstçlwjherea complnintisinstimted before acommissionerwithin thepedod above
(
k
:
t
j
' b.ml
.t
ed.,,I.R.C.j 6531 (1954).On the day before the six-yearll
.ml
.tat
ionspedod expired,the
(
'
..: !t
rC govem m ent filed a complnl
.nt before the comm l
.ssioner.Jaben, 381 U.S. 214 at 216.The
'

.
y
.
l
)'
,:r
...
j
;
y
-
. 7
t
.
)

)
.

)'
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 8 of 26

commissionerfotmd thecom plaintshowed probablecause and issued asllmm onsordering Jaben

to appear for a prelim inary henring.Ià n e prelim inary henring wms never held because an
indice entwmsretllrned,includingacotmtcovedngthe 1956attem ptedevasionthecomplainthad !

charged.1d Theindic% entwmsnotrehlrned within the norm alsix-yearlimitationsperiod,butif

thecomplainttiledwith thecomm issionerwmsvalid forthepurposeofbdnging theextension into

play,then the indic% ent was timely.Id Jaben moved to dism iss the count ofthe indice ent

perbmnlngto 1956 arguingthecom plaintwasinsuo cientbecauseitdid notshow probable cause

i
'

forbelievinghecomm itted the offense.Ià

As itdoes here,the governm entargued thattlregardlessofthe complaint'sadequacy for
'
. any otherpup oses,itwms valid forthe purpose oftriggeling the nine-month extension ofthe
. ...
.

j
r
' limitationgs)period whetherornotitshowed probable cause.''1d.at217. The Courtsquarely
)
-
.
i
)
' rejectedthegovernment'sintemretation:
é
.

r
(
q
' n e betterview ofsection 6531isthatthe complaint,to M tiatethe
.
7
$ .me extension.mustbe adecuate to beqin effectively the cnm
tl . inal
)
t. process prescr' * deral Cnm
ibed by the Fe h-.
' inal Rules. It m ust be
'

y suflkienttojtkstifythenextstepsintheprocess- thoseofnotifying
l
'
the defendant and bdnging him before the Comm issioner for a
.
y
L' . '
preliminary hennng.N
t 1
,:,
.
I6L at220.The Court:,smajority- turnl
-'ng t
o the question ofwhetherthe complaintbeforethe
)
.f
1
.;.
'
..
(
Ey
: comm l
.ssionershowedprobablecause--concludedthatitdid.
..
g
C
t i G
t Justce oldberg,joined by the ChiefJusticeW arren and JusticeDouglas,concurred in
$
(
.
t part.TheyagreedtheCourtwasççquitecorrectinrejectingtheGovemment'sargumentthstthe
)
' tlling ofany com plaintwlzich meetsthe form alreqe em entsofRule 3 ofthe FederalRules of
. .
:, Cr.lm .lnalProcedm e is sum cientto tollthe stamte ofbm ltations.NN Jaben,281U .S.214,22* 227
'
(
(Goldberg,J.,conclzm nginpartanddissenting in partl.
y
.

t
'
,
(
.
L
q
(
'
r
/1
è
t 8
):
r
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 9 of 26

TheGovem ment'sargllm entwould,in effect,allow itan additional

nine monthsirlevery case.Rather,the view thatIwould acceptas
correctis thatthe only complaintthattolls the statute is one that
begins eflkctively the crim inalprocess prescribed by the Federal
) Rules.
:

è 1é at227.'rheJusticesjoinedtheCourt'sopinionttinsofarmsithgeldqthatonlythosecomplnints
tollthe statute oflim itations wilich also startthe erim inalmachinery in motion by leading to a

prelim inary hearing in compliancewith Rtlles3,4,and 5.5'2I6L

:
'
'
Fhe Governm ent's effortat distinguishlng Jaben falls far short.Essentially,it simply
,,

arguesthatJaben dealtwith adifferentstatute.Itistnzethetwo stam tesaredifferent,buttheuse

)
i
ofthesamewordinbothsututesCinstittzte''),theclosefactllnlsimilaritybetweenDr.Gatz'scase
)
y and Jaben,and the Govem m ent's identicalm otivations in m aneuvedng arotmd the lim itations
j
!; pedod mean itwotlld beirresponsible to ignoretheholding ofJaben.Every Justiceareed thatto
i
)
y tollthe statute oflim itations,the operative com plnintmustbe sum cientto eflkctively begin the
/
.
)
.
.
'
t
E)
. criminnlprosecution.The contexthereisthesame,andthe analysisinlaben isdirectly applicable.
)
('
6'.
f:
.
: 2. The Governm ent'sRelianceon Burdix-Danm
'
?
'
.

q
,
@
' The Govem mentrelies upon an opinion ofthe United Sttes Courtof Appeals for the
'
(
'
y
i'
.
'-
)r
. Seventh Circuit, United States v.Burdàm ana, 149 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 1998).There,the
:.
(
t'
q. government sled an unconsented lnformation approximately four days before the statute of
ji
f, 'm l'tations expired, and then about two weeks later,after the lim itations period had nm,the
ll
@
:
t
r'
r governm entsoughtand obt-
m.,nedan indic% entforthesameoffensecharged inthepreviouslyfled
.
''
è
.
)
!
'

', j'
t
j
r

)
' 2n e Justices dissented,however,from thatportion ofthe Court'sopinion thatfound probable
.
'
,
cause existed.'
Ihese Justices fotmd the complaintdid nottollthe suttzte oflhnitations.Justice
i
,
W lziteandJusticeBlack concurredw1t17thejudgment,agreeingwiththeCourtthatthecomplnint
7
S
t suppliedanadequatefoundationthatprobablecauseexisted.Jabens281U.S.214,225-226(1965)
'
! (W llite.J.,concllrringinthejudgment).
(
f.
1
,
)
'
p
(
.

i
.
i.
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 10 of 26

inform ation.Id.at742.Thedefendantm oved to dismissthatindicu entasviolative ofthestamte

oflimitations,alldtheSeventh Circuitafsrmedthedistrictcourt'sdenialofthatm otion.n epanel

( heldthatthemereflingofthel
.
nformationwassuftkienttottinstitute''itunder18U.S.C.j3282.
Id at743.M d aftertheBurdixm ana decision,many otherdistrictcourtsfollowed suit.3

Burdixm ana isnotbinding upon me,and moreover,Ido notbelievethatitwmscorrectly

'
decided.Tonrriveatitsholding,thecourtdeclinedto equatettinstitute''with tttheabilitytoproceed

t w1t11aprosecution.''16l at742.Butthe courtdid notdevote any menningfuleflbrtto explsining

j
, theremsonlngforitsholding,evenwhileacknowledgingthatRule7('
b)doesnotpermitadefendant
'

to be prosecuted fora felony offense bmsed upon an unconsented lnform ation.Rather,the court
.
)
'
'-

E held, in conclusory fmshion,thatq(instim te,,an(jqijyuo ar: synonym ous.Idecline to equate > 0

f . .
diflkrentwords,with two diflkrentplmn m ennlngs.
)
7
'
q
'
Irem ain persuaded by there% onl
.ng oft
he disi ctcourtin Unitedstates v.M achado,No.
t
y CRIM .A.04-10232-RW Z,2005W L 2886213(D.M mss.Nov.3,2005).There,JudgeZobelheld
'
(
)
;
Ev stitute''doesnotme= ttfley''and shedism issed chargesastim e-barred where the govem m ent
)
(b
(.
'
.
had filed an tmconsented inform ation within thelimiutionsperiod butdid notobtain awaiverof
'
i)
.(
'.
.
')
(
.
t
(
()'
.
)
(
,
.
)
'
(
j
:
1;ln thetwenty-fiveyearssince Burdàm ana,anlzm beroffederaldistdctcourtshave applied its
rL
)'
'' holdingin thesame,orsubstnntially similarcircllmstnnces.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Holmes,No.
) 18-cr-00258,2020W L 6047232,at*8 (N.D.Cal.Oct.13,2020);UnitedStatesv.Briscoe,No.
1 . CR RDB-20-0139,2020WL 5076053,at12(D.Md.Aug.26,2020);UnitedStatesv.Marfat,
C W BS-17-0189,2018W L 1806690,at*1-2 (E.D.Cal.Apr.17,2018);United Statesv.Sharma,
. y
1
No.4:14-CR-61,2016W L 2926365,at*2-3(S.D.Tex.M ay 19,2016).Onedistrid courtdecision
.
'
)
,
' thatpredated Burdix-Dana,United Statesv.Watson,941F.Supp.601,603-04 (N.D.W .Va.
î 1996),similarly concluded thatççan l
'nformation is tinqtituted'when itisfled with the clerk of
k
) court''Itreœsonedthatçtthefilingoftheinformation,andnottheRule7(b)waiverofindice ent,
'
.
isthe eventcriticalto tollingtheapplicable lim itationsperiod;otherwise,there could beno valid
((
-
basisforprosecution onaninformationtmtilaRule7(b)waiverhadoccurred.''Id at603(relying
,
7 ontheimplicitreasoninginaTenthCircuitcase,Unitedstatesv.Coopen 956F.2d960(101 Cir.
t
,.
);
1992:.
(
.
'
j.
'

r
y 10
q
,
)
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 11 of 26

indic% entuntilO erthestamtehad nm.1d at*2.Judge Zobelexpressly disap eed w1t11Burdix-

Dana,concluding thatltliltdeseslogic and reason thatthe courtmay acceptan information

è withoutwaiverforthepurposeofapplying the statuteoflimitations,when thatsame docllmentis
)
@ $meaningless'forpuposesofsubjectmatterjurisdiction andprosecution.''f:;seealso (J5'v.
Sharma,No.4:14-CR-61,2016 W L 2926365,at+4 (S.D.Tex.M ay 19,2016) (tmconsented
'
informationwmsnotsuo cienttotollthe stam teoflimitations,snding dtno casewasçinitiated'that
(

thegovemmentwœsGableto prosecute''').LikeJudgeZobel,Ifmd j3282 presupposesthatan

E
instimted ie ormation can initiate a cnm
.
l
.
nalprosecution.After all,an information isa charging
.
;
q
i
l instrum entwhose prim ary practicalpurpose,mside 9om apprising a defendant ofthe chrges
r againsthim ,isto comm ence a prosecution.Itwould be inconsistentw1t11the Fifth Amendm ent
t
(
r
.
) d FederalRule ofCrim inalProcedm e7 to recognize an invalid charging docllm entasa mere
'
t
. all
q
j
.
) m echanism forextending a statute oflimitationspedod,though the snme legalinstrumentcould
.
(
.
t
'
1 notservetoinitiatecriminalproceedingsonthechargescontninedthereinorconfersubjectmatter
(
3
)
.

)
t jurisdictiononthecourtirlwhichthoseproceedingsaretotakeplace.
è
)
;
) M oreover, the ordinary practice of prosecutors supports the notion that a felony
.
:
(
t
'
information filed without a waiver m eans little to nothl
.ng.n at is why, as the Government
''
r
(
è
l
i
;
. ''
concedes,prior to sling a cnm 'nform ation, the prosecutor and defense cotmsel discuss
lnal l
t
)
,
whetheradefendantconsentstoproceedbyway ofinformation;ifadefendantdoesnot,then the
t
y
)
:
)
(
..
, prosecutorwillnottqleanl
.nformationabsentacontemporaneouswaiverofindic% ent.(DE 22at
ff
)
:
-
'
$ 27-28).The Governmentin thiscasehasacknowledged thatprosecutorsfollow thisprocedure
)
' preciselybecauseawaiverlessintbrmationcannotbeusedtoprosecuteadefendnrt.(fJ).
#
IX
) '
I'he aberrant nature of the Govem m ent's tiling is further demonskated by both the
).
1
t DepsrtmentofJustice's (ç<DOJ'') CriminalResomce M anualand the CriminalData Progam
'
)'
'
$
:
7 11
.
),
L.
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 12 of 26

StatisticalReportingGuideoftheUnited StatesCourts.'I'heDOJCrim inalResourceGuidestates:

''A b d when the defendanth.swaived an indica ent''and rurtheradvises:

nintbrm ation m ay euse
ç''lheprosecutingattorneyfilestheieormationwiththepresidingjudgeormagiskatebutthefiling
d
doesnotoccm untilthedefendantwaivesprosecution by indic% entpursllnntto Fed.R.Crim .P.
'
)

7(b).,,4
'
TheCriminalDataProgram StatisticalReporting Guidem nintainedby the Adm iniskative
'
@ Oflke of the United States Courts,Judiciary Da< and M alysis Offke provides:$tA felony
.
(
proceedinginitiatedbyinformation,whethersealedornot,becomesreportablewhenthede# ndant
wlfvd.çtherightto beprosecuted by indice entin accordancewith Rule 7(b)FederalRulesof
)
criminalprocedure.''s
)
(
'
)
'
C J. TheLegiNllffveH ïtor.y@ # J2#2.
l
y
Historicalcontextsurrounding both theuse ofinformationsand pandjury indice ents
(t
'),
:
t
l bUX CSSCSmy CO1KIUSiOn that(:Z stittlteNNmeo salll
.nj. m atjonm ustbeVizble;itCfmnotSH ply be
Ol'
'
t
.(
;
,
y'
:.
apieceofpaperthatisfledw1t11theclerk ofcourt.Theinstitutionofthegandjury isaso1das
;
)
' thecommon 1aw itself6Inthecolonies,thefirstreglzlargrandjurywmsestablishedin 1635.7Atl
.)
t
E((
'
'
y
'''

.
t
F'
.)
'j 4j206.F/lcnAnInformationMtzyBeUsed,DEP'TOFJUST.(updatedJan.22,2020),
) he s://- .justice.gov/rcMves/je cn'ml
'ni-resomce-mr llal-zo6-when-ieo= ation-may-be-
. t
)
'
used.
j
# 5CriminalStatisticalReporting GuidesW orking Group and Judiciary Data and AnalysisOo ce,
j
.

q
Criminal Data Program Statistical Reporting Guide, V.2.2 JNET at 7 (2020),
;.
he s://jnet.ao.dciresoc ces/statistics/repohlg-guides/cdminz-sutisticz-repodhg-guide.
t
(
.

t 6See1Jx< sFITZJAMESSTEPHEN,AHISTORYOFTl'
lECRIMINALLAWOFENGLAND253
)
' (London, M acM illan& Co.1883)(tt'l'hesystem ofaccusationwhich 1edupto,andtousea
i modem legalexpression çsounded'inordeal,wastheodginofthegrandjuryoflatertimes,and
)
.

' ofotlrowndays.'').
.
i
.
) 7RJCHARD D .Y OUNGER,TI'
IE PEOPLE'SPANEL:THE GRAND JLTRY IN THE U M TED STATES,1634-
.
èq
)r
19416(j96g).
. (' 12

t
)
1
.
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 13 of 26

inform ation,asa charging instrument,datesback to atleastthe seventeenth century.Butnotably

the use ofinformations was consned to ltm ere misdemeanors only:for,whenever any capital

oFence Ewas)chrged,thessme1aw requiregd)thattheaccusation bewarranted by theoath of !

twelve men,before the party (was) putto answer it.''8 In fact,ttgbqy the 1aw of England,
informationsbytheAttomey-General,withouttheintervention ofagrandjury,werenotallowed
forcapitalcrimes,norforany felony.''Ex Parte Wilson,114 U.S.417,423 (1885)(emphœsis

. .
In this m nnner,the first Conp ess enacted the statute of bm ltations for ::Offenses not
.

capitar'- whatweknow today as18U.S.C.j3282- 0 0u1 theCnmesAd of1790,thesrst

statute detailing a comprehensive listoffederalcrim es and thei.
rpmishments.gn e language of
)
thesututehmslrgelyremainedtmchangedoverthepast230years,buttheoliginal1790version
t
.
î
)
E provided:(Noperson shallbeprosecuted,tried,orp lnl
;d
k -shed,forany offensenotcapital,exceptas
)
è
t
t
l
' provided in section one thousand and forty-six rlcrimestmderthe revenue laws''),Imlessthe
t.)
;
t
r indicu entisfotmd,ortheinformationisinstitutedwithm twoyearsnextaftersuchoffenseis
'
y
1
l
'
comm '
ltted.,'10subsequentsm endmentshaveextended thelimitationspedod9om two tothreeand
è,;
)
1
.
fm ally 5veyears.n e statute predatesRule 7 ofthe FederalRulesofCrim inalProcedureby 154
.

)
(
)
.
'
$ years.W hen Congressfirstdrafted the pllrase ttirzformation is instituted,''itcould notpossibly
j'
1
.
)
t
'
y .
have intended thatan instim ted inform ation be one thatis merely filed because Rule 7 ofthe
E
:
)
-
t
(
? FederalRulesofCdrninalProcedure subsequently outlinesthe conditionsthatm ustadditionally
,

,
..
t
)
:
.
r.

1ê
j g4W illiam Blackstone,Commentane
.sontheLawsofEnglandinFourBooks310tplliladelphiw
t
. JB.LippincottCo.,1893).
.

i 9SeeCrimesAct,FEo.JUD.CTR.,ho s://- .jc.govY stog/tM elhe/cn'mes-act.

(.r
;.
.:
)
k
.
jgActofApdl30,1790,ch.9,j32;1Stat.119(emphasisadded).
.r
. (
)
f
) 13
è.

*
7
'
(
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 14 of 26
t
t

bemettoinitiateprosecution,astheGovernm entisnow arguing.In 1790,Rule 7did notyetexist.

Instead,an tlinstituted intbrmation''needed tobeonethatsuffkiently initiated aprosecution.

'
l TheCrim esActof1790 ck onologically predatestheFifth Amendment,wllichwasratified
8'
(
@ one yearlaterin 1791.However,lmlike itslack offnmiliarity with thenonexistsntRule 7 ofthe
) FederalRules ofCivilProcedm e,the FirstCongresswasvery aware ofthe ongoing practice of
(
.

j felony indictmentsby agrandjury andthelimited use ofirlformationssolely formisdemeanors.

Both before 1790 and in the yearsfollowing,intbrm ations ûûwereprincipally,ifnotexclusively,
L
usedfortherecoveryoffmesand forfeitures,such asthoseimposedbytherevenueand embargo
t
j
'
laws''ExParte Wilson,114U.S.at424-25.And although theHghttoagrandjurywasnotyet
.

ï
r
q enshrined in the Constimtion,
the draftersofthe stamte oflimitations in the Cn'mesActof1790
!
.
,

l contem plated and % ew thatfelony charges were only broughtby indice ent,and only lesser
y
j.
'
offensescould bebroughtby way ofinformation.Thisisno inferencebutcontsrmedby historical
t
)
j
.
; :
, nal
t
.Q
.
q
accounts and the Suprem e Court.Justice Story,writing in 1833 of the practice of cnmi
è
)
#
h
è
q O ormations, said,t
tlTll1isprocessisrarely recurred to in America;and ithmsneveryetbeen
)')
y
)'
'
; formally putinto operation by anypositiveauthorityofCongress,underthenationalGovem ment,
'
é
j
.
l
)
.
in mere cmsesofrnisdemeanor;though comm on enough in civilprosecutions forpenaltiesand
'ï
(
)
'''j .
,,
t forfeitures.''Id at425(emphasisadded).DespitethefactthatitcodifedtheCnmesActof1790
(
t
t beforethe Fifth Am endment,the FirstConp ess likely intended thatthe two comportw1t11one
t
t
it
.
another,asatthe tim ethe statute pa sed,the BillofRightshad already been drafted,edited,and
E
. )
l
j
t senttothestatesforratifkation-ll
()
-f
;'
.
)
'
)
.;
(
?. l1Seee.g.
,AKHILAMA1:,Tl4EW ORDSTHATM ADEUS:AMERICA,SCONSTITUTIONAL
. f;
t
l
CONVERSATION,1760- 1840,314(2021).
.
!
.t
.
( 14

è
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 15 of 26

Ultim ately,theFifth Amendm ent'sratifcation in 1791cnnnotbe intep reted ascorrecting

' the ostensible practiceofcharging feloniesby inform ation thatwms supposedly enshrined in the
)
' Crim esActof1790.No such practicewmsoccurring oxhad everoccurred,and thesnm e Congress

t dro ed both the statute and the Fifth Am endm ent.W hen drafting the Act,Congressknew that
.

.
i
informationswerelim ited in practiceto misdemeanorsand thatsoon,dueto constimtionalrights,

.
felony chargeswould only bebroughtby indictment.
W ith thiscontextin mind,the legalconceptofadefendantaccused ofafelony waivinghis
r

l constitutionalrightto prosecution by grandjury indic% entdid notemerge untilthe twentieth

)
)
'
j century.Sc:,e.g.,Unitedstatesv.Gill,55F.2d399,401(D.N.M .1931).Initially,intheflrsthalf
L'
,
;
,
. of the twentieth century, some states nmended their constitutions and statutes to allow for
j
ë
F
'
prosecution ofnoncapitalfeloi esby inform ation.12 Conp essthereafterfollowed suitw ith Rules
(;
1' . . alprocedure l3
F: 7(a)and('b)oftheFederalRtllesofCnmln .

z
t
j1
.'
.
i Title 18,UnitedStatesCode,section 3288,'lnlikesection 3282,expressly appliestofelony
è
j
3
t
E
'
i
.
t
y
.
) charges.18U.S.C.j3288ClWheneveranindic% entorinformationchrginga#lonyisdismissed
)'
r
)
.

ï' '')(emph%isadded).Conwessoriginally enacted j 3288in 1948.14Priortothecodifkation

. . . .

(
4
:
.
.
.
1
) of18U.S.C.j3288,averyslmllarstatute,enactedin 1934,wmsineffectthatprovided:
. @

y)
4 W henever an indictm entisfotmd defective orinsufficientforany
q
)
. cause, after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of
7
'9 'ml
ll 'tations has expired, a new indictmentm ay be retlzrned atany
.
j
ts time dlm ng the next succeeding term of court following such
) fnding,dlmngwhichagrandjurythereofshallbein session.
t
T
l
j
t
)
k
!
'.
r
è
)
'
.
12CharlesS.Potts,WaiveroflndictmentinFelony Cases,3Sw.L.REv.437,437-42(1949).
)
-
..;
) 13Icj
)
j
'
'
t
(:
1
è
14ActofJune25,1948,ch.645,62 Stat.628.
!
.
è .
.
,

t
p 15A ctofM ay 10,1934,ch.278,48 Stat.772.
'
(
.
')
15
g
'

L'
â.
l
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 16 of 26

ln Unitedstatesv.DurkeeFamousFoods,306U.S.68,71n.2(1939),theSupremeCourt
identifiedthelegislativeintentof18U.S.C.j587(now 18U.S.C.j3288)asthatexpressedin a
:
y
1934 letterfrom theattorney generalto the Senate Judiciary Comm ittee,which stated in partthat
.
(
'
(
! legislation isrecomm endedproviding thatin any casein which an indictmentisfotmd defective
<<

ï
orinsum cientforany cause,aftertheperiod prescribed by thestamteoflim iutionshmsrun ...a

new indica entmay be ret= ed atany time during the firstsucceeding te= ofcourtatwhich a

j randjuryisin session.''In 1964, Congresssmended j3288tûto correcta Gloophole'inthelaw

g'
.
7 whichoccurredwhenitbecnmepossibletochargeEfelonies)byizzformationaswellasindic% ent''
.

)
.
,
Unitedstatesv.Charnay,537F.2d 341,353-54(%h Cir.1976).AsSenateReport1414 statedin
l(
'
.
(
L
, referenceto the 1964 changes,precipitated in partby a letter9om then-Attom ey GeneralRobert
Tô'
(
t F.Kennedy,
').
1' n epurpose ofthe proposed legislation isto am end sedions3288
)t and 3289 oftitle 18,United StatesCode,so asto provide thatthe
;)
1 Provisions of those sections will extend to felony proceedings
f,, instituted by '
lnformation as well as by indica ent.The sections
)1
' concern cmses w here a new indice ent is retllrned after a prior
Ej
E)# indic% ent hms been dismissed, because of an error, defect, or
t irregularity with respectto the grandjury,orbecause ithasbeen
f
i foundotherwisederective.Theamendmentswouu thereforepermit
yi
.5
# reindictmentin similarcaseswherean informationwashled ajter
t
;
E;
thedefendantwaivedinopencourtprosecutionbyindictment.'6
).
7
è' n elegislativehistog ofj3228 indicatesthatalthough thestatutepermitstolling ofthe
.
l
i
r
y
:
i
' limitationsperiod specitk ally forfelonies,Congressdid notintendto createameanstobypassthe
q

.
1 statute of lim itations altogether by tsling a defective information. n e 1964 nm endments
)
!
'
,
KextendEedltheapplication ofthesuttztesto felony proceedingsinstitutedby l
'nformation rather
'j
..:

)
7
@
t 16S@ REp* No.88-1414N at1(1964)y asreprinted in 1964U.S.C.C.A.N.3257-58(empha-
qis
) atjtjetj;.
)$
-
j
'.
t
) 16

)
.

(
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 17 of 26

than by indictment.''l?cong essnmended the stamtesin thismsnnerin response to FederalRule

i
ofCn'minalProcedure7(b),giventhat
)
1
t
) Ealtthe timeoftheenac% entofthe sututesfrom which sections
3288 and 3289 arederived,felony prosecutionscouldbeM tiated
r
only by grand jury indic% ent.However,rule 7 ofthe Rules of
i Crim inal Procedure for the U.S.District Courts, authorizes the
prosecution ofa noncapitalfelony by information ifthe defendant
i in open courtwaivesprosecution by indica ent.l8
k
Thus,thislegislativehistorydemonstratesthatCongressintended jj3288and3289totoll
thelimitationsperiodatj3282 fordismissedinformationswherethoseinformationscomported
:
(
E
..
.

j
withRule7(b).
)
à Becausethellistoricalrecord indicatesthatindividualsaccused ofnoncapiulfeloniescould
î
i
è notwaive indic% entarld consentto proceed by way ofirlformation atthe time thatCongress
E
#
y
i
)
.
è
t createdj3282,spredecessor,itfollowsthatwhenConpessfirstwrotequjafbrmation isinstituted''
L
j.
1
è
;
.
in 1790,itlikely intended thatthesled information would constim tea valid charging document,
?
tt
'
..
.)
) which atthetim em eantadocum entthatadequately charged amisdem eanororlesseroffense.The
(
:t
'
.
t
@ idea thatan ineflkctive intbrmation could be instituted to tollthe limitations pedod,butnotto
.
('
E
t
')
'
( prosecute the accused,could nothave been a consideration atthe statute's inception,nor atthe
,
Ey
7)
q
.
i
)
t
.
.
timej3288oritspredecessorwereenacted.
)
y
j
.
...
..

)
'
t #. The G overnm ent,,
J.TextualA nalysis.
C
)
i
' TheGovem mentputsforth severalargllmentsurging thecorrecm essofitsintem retation
.. )
) ofçtinstituted,''bmsed both on itsview ofthe meaning ofthe legislative history,and canons of

l'
y '
7
J
;,.(.
2
r jrgg
(
; 18Id at2(proceedingto quoteFederalRuleofCriminalProcedure7(b)).TheReportcontinued,
q l'he*proposed amendm entsrecognizethatfelony prosecutionsmay beinstituted by informations
u'
.
:
(
..; and thatdismissalsofsuch prosecutionsbecause oftechnl .caldefectsin the l
.nformations should
;
( beaccordedkeaa entsim ilarto thataccorded prosecutionsinstim ted by indic% ents.''1à
t- 17
)

)
)
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 18 of 26 !

statutorycons% ction.M though itspreciseposition isnotclearw1t11respecttotheextenttowhich

itdisputesm yrecitation ofthelegislativehistory,theGovem m entin itsResponsebdefdoesposit

l an altem ativereadingofcong essionalintent.Forinstnnce,theGovernmentattributessignifkance

to the ideathatCongresshasneveraltered oramended ordeleted theûlintbrm ation isinstimted''

.
.
.
1
.

languagetogiveitaçtdeeperordifferentmeaning,''despitethefactthatsince 1946,j3282(a)hms
'
;
l been amended fourtimes,and a11thewizilettcongressknew that,tmderRule7(b),defendants
t
C
harged with felony offenses had to waive thei.
r rightto prosecution by indica entbeforethey
E

could beadjudicated on an irzformation.,,(DE 42 at12).'

FheGovernmentalso pointsto thegacj
'

j thatCongressnmendedthesututeafterBurdixm ana and itsprogeny weredecided,and Gtinthe

'
.
;
r
j
faceofthatconsistentbody ofcommon1aw interpretingwhattinstituted'means''in j3282(a),it
i
)
.
)
;
y -
,
didnotactto cladfy them ennl
ng.Ido notfmd thesearpzmentscompelling ata11.In my view,the
,

)r
t
yî
) @ng ofCongressionalq:l
Governmentvmstly overstates the m ennl .nnctjony,ju jyj,ugujaxjsjyg uuj
i(
'
t
i
5
,
E view Conp ess,sinaction asthe benchm ark forintep reting the statutory language herebecause
y.
l
.
)
. Congressm ay havedecidednotto actforavariety ofre% ons.And such rec onsm ightbe wholly
..
1,
l
y
)
'
;
'
'
) lmrelated to its agreem entor disagreementw1t11the way the Govem m enthms interpreted this
'
))
:,
,
:t.
/
' statute.
'jF
'
;y
'
t
q The Governmentalso suggeststhatforsum teoflimitationspup oses,an indice entcan
.
;
)
,
E
(
'
)
)
beGfotmd''bythegrandjurybeforeitisrehlrned(orpublicly 5ledl.ltsaysthataprosecution
)
.
@
!
) crmnot go forward withoutthe indicc ent return,yetitisthe uj-
m djng,,ofthe indic% entthat
)$
..
' '
.,
t
) rendersittimelytmderj3282.M alogizl
ng,theGovemmentgoesontoarguethatinthecaseof
-
,
'
)

'
l
. a felony inform ation,the ttinstituting''ofit (by filing it) renders ittimely,even though the
)
.
j
(
'.
'
(
L defendant'sformalwaiveris a separate,and later,proceduralevent.Therefore,according to the
. t
?
(
. .
t
) Government,thechargingdocllmentistimelyuponthefirstevent,eveniftheprosecutioncnnnot
'
)
.

j
'

.)
.è
; 18
. L
. :
J
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 19 of 26

ultimately progresswithoutthe second.lfIunderstlmd the Govem m ent'sarplm entcorrectly,it

t
seem s to be effectively equating the requirem ent that a defendant waive a fundnm ental
)
constitutionalrightwith thetechnl
.calpubl
icfling ofanindictmentthathmsalready been found by
)
'
à
(
7
)
, agrall
djury.Butitseemstomethattheeventofproceduralsigrlifkanceisthesatisfaction ofthe
)
ï
) constitutionalrequirementsineachsitllntion.'Fheconstitutionissatisfedonceagrandjuryindicts.
)
i
.
'Iheconstimtionisnotsatisfed,however,ifadefendantcharged*111afelonyoflknsedoesnot
;

waivehisrighttoindictment.
'

j In short,the Govem ment's arplm ents in no way underm ine my conclusions aboutthe
t
ï mesning oftûinstituted.''EvenwereItoaccept(whichIdonot)someoftheOovernment'stextual
j'
.cal- lcnnnothelp but
analysis- m uch ofwhich 1view tobe somewhattortured and overly technl
t
k come back to theideathatultimately,theGovernment'sproposed intem retation would lead to an
)
'
#
t:
.
è
) absurd result.Itiswellsettled thatltstattztesshould receive a sensible construction,such aswill
.
r
)
r)
..

'
jrt ef
l-
ectllnte the legislative intention,andsif possible,so as to avoid an unjustor an absurd
'
:;'
;
y
t
.
,
r
)
'
t conclusion.''In reChapman,166 U.S.661,667 (1897).
,seealso United Statesv.Turkette,452
'

y
)
'
' U S 576 580 (1981) (t%absurd results are to be avoided''in construing s'
tamtes).And the
y
.
(
'
;
.) .. y
(
)y
. requirem entthatstamtes notbe given an absurd constnzction can even ovenide plain m enning,
)
'
.
.
,

)
? - when necessary.Asthe Eleventh Circuithmsrecognized;ltn ere is,ofcourse,a well-esublished
f
()
.
i absurdity exception to the plm'n menning doctrine.''M iccosukee Tribe v. South Everglades
.
.y
., j
.
) RestorationAlliance,304F.3d 1076,1086(111 Cir.2002).Inthiscase,Ithinkthattheabsurdity
'
.:
)
) canon barsthe intepretation thatthe Governmentm ges- nnmely,thatttinstituted''in j3282
1
? 'nIy encom pmsses the filing of an inform ation that cnnnot initiate a prosecution. The
plnl
,

E@'
.
.
i Governmentshould notbe ableto grantitselfa six-month extension ofthe suttzte oflim iutions
(.
CC heneveritwants,in every cmse,simply by filing apatently defective arld m eaninglesscharging
)
( .
W
(
t
.
,
l
j
y
2
.
.

t
)( 19

(
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 20 of 26

(
docnment,and then immediately dismissing itto invoke the savingsprovisionsofj3288.As
' Defendantaptly notes:ttW hilethe backdrop ofthe Govem m ent'saction wasthe pandem ic this
r.
E
/ time,onceenshrinedintolaw by adecision fortheGovernm entin thisc% e,theGovemm entwould

haveablnnk check foratleasta six-month extension ofthestatute in every cmsein itslmfettered

'
(
discretion.,,(os jyat7).
è C . EquitableTollinz
-
'
y
k W hen thism atter wmsbefore me previously,the Governm entchose to rely solely on its
.

'
J
' interpretationofj3288'ssavingsclause,anditexpresslydeclinedtoargueforapandemic-limited
?
7
1 tion to the statute of lim itations,or to otherwise invoke pdnciples of equitable tolling.
. CXCeP
t Perhapsthisisbecausetheuseofthedocd ne ofequitabletolling within the contextofacriminal
t
f
t
.
.
.
)
t statm eoflimiutionsisquestionable,as1willexplainbelow.W hatevertheremson,theGovernm ent
#
@ now statesthatç%otheextentthattheUnited Statespreviously waived any argllm entasto equitable
'
)
.

tL
.
'
.
1
$
L
;
.
tolling,theUnited Stateswithdrawsthatwaiver.''(DE 42at22).
t;
'
t
E
:(
;
Inm notconvinced thattheGovem m entcan effectivelyttwithclraw yjitswaiveratthisstage
jy
è'r
''(
.
,

)
.y
'
.
.
oftheproceedings.In seekingto do so,theGovernmentinterjectsawhollynew groundforits
y1
k
y
l)
'
, proposed outcome,and itraisesthisg'
rotmd forthe flrsttim e in a post-rem and responsebriefin
.
)
!
.
C
:
)
l
'
r opposition to Defendant,
)sM otion toDismiss.TheGovernmentcouldhavemadetheseargllm ents
)
.

L
)
'
)
,
' earlier,anditexplicitly declinedtodo so.1thereforehaveconcem saboutpermitting ittodo an
E
(
)
.
h
) about-faceattllispointoftheproceeding.SeeWilchombev.TeeveeToons,Inc.,555F.3d949,
L'
;
1 958(11+ Cir.2009)(intemalquotationandcitation omitted)(refuKingtogiveapartyattsecond
r
7
t biteattheapple''aherfailingtoraiseanargumentbeforethedisi ctjudge);seealsoUnitedstates
'
#
'
)
.
'.
rj
iE
'' v
.
Sharp,21F.4th 1282,1287(111 Cir.2021),certdenied,143S.Ct.195(2022)(allowingthe
'.
t
y
(
.
? govem m entto raisean argllmentforthe frsttime on appealdueto a change in 1aw butexplicitly
'

(
..,
..

.'.
;!
(
) 20
)
.
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 21 of 26

noting thattheholdingwaslim itedtocasesSçwherean intervening changeinthelaw occm swithin

the period oftimeallotted forfiling anoticeofappeal.'').M oreover,itcertainly prejudicesthe

oefendantto have to rebutuwse new argum entstiuve yearsinto tlw proceedings,aftermultiple

roundsofsubstlmtivebriefing,both in thisCourtand on appeal.

Further,theGovernmentfailsto citean ' gparticuladyhelpfulin supportofitsposition

!
thatitcanrevokean explicitwaiverofan argllm entafterappeal.The singlecaseitclaimsprovides

theauthority forwithdrawalisinapposite.In Stevens v.Marka,383 U.S.234,244 (1966),the

'
,
SupremeCourtheldawiGesstestifyingbeforethepandjuryeffectivelyrevoked thewaiverthat
:
hehad signed ofhisFifth Am endmentrights.In thatcase,theprosecutorsthreatened thewiGess
,

tosign thewaiveronthreatoflosinghisjobbutdidnotgrantthewimess1:avalid immlmity9om

)
i
è
) subsequentprosecuti on.''Id.at241.TheCourtheldthatawiGesshasûtaconstitutionalrightto
.

?
q
:
7
t stnnd on the pdvilege againstself-incrimination tmtilithasbeen fairly dem onskated to him that
)
:
.
)
; -
'mmlml
-ty,msbroad in scope asthe privilegeitreplaces,isavailable and applicable forg
j
.
r
j1
-
,m .,,
an l
16
.

!
-
)
:
'
$ 1é at246.BecausethewiG ess,swaiverwmsinvalid originally,hisrevocation ofthewaiverwas
..
j
;
.

E
.
6
j
'
;
.
valid.1d.at243.Arglung
, thattlliscase standsforthe proposition the governm entcan revoke a
-
'
t
)
k waiverofan arplmentafterthreeyearsoflitigation and an appealistenuousatbest.Iap eewith
'

)
t
,
(
'
? theDefendantthatintheinterestoffxandnmentalfnirness,t:ltlheGovernmentshouldnothavethe
)
')
'
(
.
.,.
ability to cherrp pick altem ative tolling theodes atvariouspoints in the litigation when itsuits
)
j
!
!.,
j them .,,(ss 4gatjj;.
l
i
t Regardless,in the lterestofcom pleteness,Iwilladdressthe me
'ritsofwhetherequitable
(
'
t o inalproceeding.
tolling should apply in thiscnm
'
r )
) As the Governmentacknowledges,equitable tolling is m ore commonly applied in civil
((
y
..

t cmses.(DE 42at23).Thereislittleauthorityfortheideathatitcanextendtothecriminalcontext.
. ))'
.
'
y
. 78
! 21
(
.
.

t
'
 !
Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 22 of 26

In fact,the Third Circuitappearsto be the only circuitthathasbroached the idea thatequitable

tollingcan applyto crim inalsuttltesoflimiGtion.See Unitedstatesv.M idgley,142 F.3d 174,179

(3dCir.1998)(internalcitationsomitted)(holdingthateqlzitabletollingmightapplyinacriminal
contextin tlu'
ee scenados:the defendanthœs actively m isled the plaintiff,the plnintiffEtin som e

exlaordinaryway''wasGtprevented from M sertinghisdghts,''ortheplm'ntiffbroughtthecrim inal

E complaintinatimelyfashionbutintheincorrectfonzm);seealso Unitedstatesvfevine,658F.2d

.
113,120(3dCir.1981)Csututesoflimiutionsfurtherreflectanunderlyinglegislativebalance
insofarasdifferentcrimescarry differenttime pedods,and the sututes are subjectto tolling,
t
(
i
-
@
.
stlspension andwaivennl.ButeventheThird Circuitwhenconfrontedwithequiubletollingofa
) . nalstamteoflimittionsseemsapprehensivetoapplyit.SeeUnitedstatesv.Atl
cnmi keh,402F.3d
7 354, 367 (3d Cir.2005)(.-Tlliscourthmsneverapplied equitable tolling to rescue a oovernment
('
!;

t
, 'm l
indica entfiled afterthe statute ofll 'tationshaslapsed,and we seeno convincing rationaleto
g(.
E
i
t
è
t'
;î
do sohere.'').
(
.
t'
?
Indeed,the Governmentcites nothlng binding on thisCourtforthe idea thata crlmlni
-, y
k
jjj
,
-- -,

)'
'
'.
r
()
1
(
. stamte oflimitationscan be equitabletolled;itrelieslstead on the generalpremisethatcertain
.j
)n.
y
7
)
.
(
'
7
.
.
y
th rtypesoftimelimitsincriminalcasescanbesubjectto equitabletolling,such asthetimefor
o e
(
.

)
7 filing anoticeofappealorthetime forfling a habeaspetition.(DE 42 at23,citingFallen v.
t
q
L
j
q
.î
t
' UnitedStates,378U.S.139,144 (1964),Grantv.Swarthout,862F.3d 914,923(9t,
hCir.2017:.
)
:
y
) But these post-conviction deadlines m'
e different- and arguably less significant- procedural
'
)
y
1 eventsin thelife ofacrim inalc% e.Thus,Inm reluctantto equatethetolling ofsuch deadlinesto
t
è

y.
'è thetolling ofthesutm eoflimitationsto bdng charges.lg
'

t
(.
''
J
t
. L
t' 19Ihaveequiubly tolled acrim inalstam teoflimitationsinthepastdueto COVID-19.See United
'
.
)
q Statesv.Xavier,CaseNo.20-80054(2020).Thefactsallegedinthatcasewerediflkrent;someof
;
tt
the cotmtsclearly fellwithl
.n the stam te oflimitations.M oreover,having now sm died the issue
.

(
: 22
);
 1
i
.

Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 23 of 26

But even if equitable tolling does apply in crim inalcases,I nm notpersuaded by the

Government's arglzm ents thatthe limitations period should be tolled in Defendant's case for

severalreasons.In part,Ifmd itdiflicultto square w1111the factthatCongressexpressly decided

notto adoptlegislation thatwould havetolled statutesoflimitationsduring the pendency ofthe

COVID-19 shutdown.Eady in the pandemic,the DOJ lobbied for legislation thatwould have
y

suspendedortolledcriminalsututesoflimitation,butabipartisanCongresssoundlyrejectedsuch
F

arequest.lndeed,asDefendantnotes,DOJ'sproposed legislation wmswidely condemned across

thepoliticalspectrum.(DE 47at6,quotingindividllnlCongressmembers'responsestotheDOJ

'
initiative).
j
' Moreover,theconsiderationsgovemingapplicationofthedoctrineofequitabletollingdo
;
,
( notweigh intheGovem ment'sfavor.Iglean9om relevantcaselaw thatthedocd ne contemplates
:
7
j
'
)'
, thefollowing:First,thatapartym ustshow thatitwasprevented 9om bringing theaction because
l
.g
)
'
.)
(
.
r of inequitable circllm stnnces and that those circum stnnces were outside that pmty:
!
,s conkoj.
j ,
.
)
.
.;
:
(
.
-
71 Second, thatthe party seeking to invoke the dodline be withoutany faultorwantofdiligence.
't
-
)
t
- Third,tollingmustcomportwith sotmdlegalpdnciplesandmustbeintheinterestofjustice.And
.
j
g
.
j
y
.
,
.

y
)
.
a1lofthesefactorsm ustbe applied benrl
.ng irlm l
.nd thatthe equitable tolling doci ne should be

.
$ invoked only sparingly and undervery nan'
ow circumslnnces.
t;
.
.
'

.
(
't
)
t
(
' Here,theGovem m ent'sinabilityto indicttheDefendanton timewmspartly dueto itsown
'
;
J
.
)
.
y
t
:
.
.
delay.Dr.Gatzwmstmderinvestigation between 2012through 2015.A11ofthefactsalleged inthe
.
. t
.
j
f
. Information wereknown to the Governmentbefore g'
rand judeswere suspended,and no new
)
:
)
-
.
(
qt
ï
.
t)
'
7
C:
)
j m ore closely,Iquestion whetherthatwasthe rightresult.Regardless,in Xavier,the Defendant
i pleaded to the Countthat fellwithin the statute while those arguably outside the statute were
f .
dism issed.
::1
;
.
j
k
)
)
:
( gg
;:
.

'
)
)
.
.. (
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 24 of 26

evidence cameto lightimmediately beforeorduring the shutdown.Atoralargum entpriorto my

frstorderofdismissal,cotmselforthe Uxlited Statesadvised thattheGovem mentconducted one

' inteM ew related to thiscaseduringthep'andjury suspension.(DE 22 at23).In thissense,the

inability to comply w1t11the lim itationsperiod was notdue to circllm Ktnnces wholly outofthe
Govem ment'sconkol.Irecognize,asthe Governm entpointsout,thatthe Eleventh Circuithas

) held thattlltlhe governmenthasno constitutionalduty to indictmssoon asthe prosecutorhas

.

'
1
) probable causeto believethatthe defendantisguilty.''United States v.Dyal,868 F.2d 424,429
::
:
t (111 Cir.1989).ButiftheGovemmentseekstoinvokethisexceedinglyraretollingdocm.ne,the
-.
ë
t
) mnnnerand timing ofitshwestigation sholzld be subjectto fairscnltiny.W hen exnmining the
(
ï specifk cirmzms4nnces atplay here,itis apparentto m e thatthe pandem ic is no excuse forthe
'
E
j
) delayed indice entoftheDefendant.
.
i
)
'
(
'
t
.
Moreover,theGovemmentwmsnotoutofoptions.Ithasnotsuffkientlyexplninedwhyit
)
;
:
h
.
..
.

could nothave soughtan indic% entin anotherdistrict,whereactivegrandjuriesweresitting

è
' despitethepandem ic shutdown.On August31,2020,therewereatlemstnineavailabledisz ctsin
)
i
l
,
which the Govem m enthad previously indicted m SY S cmses s' 'lm'to Dr.Gatz's case,a11of
lml
.
(
1 whichhadgrandjuriesthatwereconvening.(SeeDE 37atnote1).Thiswouldseem torenderthe
''
y
b
.

t
? indictm entofthe Defendantin adifferentdistrictaviableoption.
k)
.
è Finally,the superseding Indica ent alleges acts by the Defendant occtm ing between
x
),
August2012andAugust2015,al1overeightyearsago.Inmyview,anyprejudicesufferedbythe
a
' Govem m entcaused bythepandem ic isou- eighed by thatofDr.Gatzindefending agnlnstthese
)
7
'
) delayed charges.n us,dismissingthe untim ely Superseding Indice entin thiscase would serve
!
)
J tohonortheprotectionsafforded by 1aw to theDefendnnt
'
k
q
t.
)
'
;
..

rk
t
(
.
è
J, 24
ï

)
f'
y
 Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 25 of 26

CONCIXUSION
t
.
)
(' The Govem m ent'sattempted workaround bringsto mind atansgression 9om the world
'

('
è
. f rt Dudng an intentionalgrounding onthefootballseld the quarterback dropsback top% s,
0 SPO . N
qy
t
E butjustbeforebeingtackledforaloss,throwsaforwardpasswithno chanceofcompletion and
)
)
!t
1
,
noreceiverinthevicinity.lntentionalgrotmding drawsaflag,lossofa down,and apenaltyoften
'
(
t yardsf'
rom thepreviousspot.In theend zone,itresultsin a safety.
20
1
y Here the Government filed a charging document that cotlld not lead to a successful

)
Jl
!'
..
prosecution.Facingan expiring statuteoflimitations,theGovemmenttiled an information fora
(
'
t
) felony crime knowing thatthe Defendantwas tmwilling to waive lzisFifth Amendmentrightto

i
) Zdictmentby agrandjury.TheGovernmentadmitsthatthelnformationcnnnotbegin orinitiate
(:
1
)
) aprosecutionandadmitsthatitsonlypurposeistotollthestatuteoflimitations.'I'heGovernment
C
f
)
$ also arguesthatthroughtbisploy,itcanin everycmseunllaterally convertandextendtheapplicable
) .
;
.
) stamteoflimitationsbysixmonths.zlFo<a11thereasonsexplainedabove,1donotbelievethatcan
' i
:y
') possibly beright.
(t
.
Altllough I acknowledge that tbis gam bit has gained som e traction, including 9om
.:
t
l '
f excellentjudgesinthisdisG ct,Ibelieveitultimatelyfailsbecauseofthelanguageofthesutute,
1.
.
)
.:
;

20ultisa foulforintentionalr ounding ifapmsser,facing an im minentlossofyardagebecauseof

pressure gom the defense,tbrows a forward pass without a realistic chrmce of completion.A
#
realisticchance ofcom pletion isdefm ed ms apmssthatisthrown in thedirection ofand landsin
thevicinity ofan originally eligiblereceiver.''SeeO.#lcfl/PlayingRulesoftheNationalFootball
'
t
Lelglze,Rule8Section2(2023).
7 21Atoralargum enton November29,2023,Iœsked theprosecutorifthis option isGEavailableto
; youineverycase,''towhichshereplied,1t1dobelieveso,lotlrHonor,becatlseConmesssaid3288
)
.' wheneveran indictm entorinfbrm ation charging a felony lsdism issedforany reason.''Ifollowed
r up and asked çtyou don't th111 that means an effective l .
nformation or a valid or operative
/
f
information....Itjustmeanssomethingthat'scalledaninformationr 'Fheprosecutorresponded,

E
L
.
25
)
.'
j .

Case 9:20-cr-80063-DMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2023 Page 26 of 26

'
g
)
(
:.
(
.
.

( itslegislativehistory,adecision ofthe Suprem e Courtanalyzing the sam e language in a sim ilar

'
.
' statute,and the g= anteeofthe Fifth Amendm ent.
):
t'
Accordingly,itishereby ORDERED ytND ADJUDGED thattheDefendantNsM otionto
)
; DismissIndic% ent(DE 37)isGRANTED.
.
(
'2
y SIGNED in ChambersatW estPalm Beach,Floridw this a ofDecem ber,2023.
'
L
-,-
1
)
-.

)
. .
y.
.,' D ALD .V DDLEBROOKS
I
yL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
)
t
)
(
E(
.
)
, copiesto:co'mselofRecord
l
t
i
.
.
j.
..
'
.
. (,
t.
$
. .q
,
j
'
k
'
)
C
)
1
.
l
t
)
.
.

'
.
t
'
j
(
.ï.

y
t
.
'
L
.
)
.

l
J
)
q
.

)
;
L:

(
.

q
.

L.
)
'
;'
(
)
'':
j
.
.
.
(
:

;
C
1
) 26
t
f
I