Scribd

January 23, 2018

BY HAND and ECF

The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re:

United States v. Christopher Asch S4 12 Cr. 847 (PGG)

Dear Judge Gardephe: The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the sentencing of Christopher Asch in advance of his sentencing, which is scheduled for January 29, 2018. As the Court is aware, Asch was convicted after trial on the above-referenced Superseding Indictment (the “Indictment”) charging him with two separate conspiracies to commit kidnapping, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c). As set forth below, the seriousness of the crimes of conviction, which involved detailed and grotesque plans to kidnap, rape, torture and murder women and children, cannot be overstated. Nor can the defendant’s role in those planned crimes, or the actions he took to further those crimes. To this end, the Government strongly disagrees with the Probation Department’s recommendation in this case, along with their justification for that recommendation, as they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the defendant’s culpability in this case and his role in the crimes of conviction, as is discussed further below. In order to protect society from this individual, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should impose a substantial sentence of incarceration, significantly above probation’s recommendation of 120 months.

Background and Procedural History

Having presided over Asch’s trial and the subsequent Rule 29 litigation, the Court is uniquely aware of the facts in this case.

The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney Southern District of New York

Case 1:12-cr-00847-PGG Document 502 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 7

Page 2

The investigation in this case began in October 2012, after the FBI learned that co-conspirator Michael Van Hise was sending electronic mail and instant messages to solicit individuals to kidnap, rape, and kill his wife as well as his sister-in-law and her children. (Tr. 54 56).

1

Pursuant to Court-authorized search warrants, members of the FBI reviewed communications from Van Hise’s e-mail account to Asch, a former New York City public high school librarian, and Richard Meltz, then-Chief of Police at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Bedford VA Medical Center in Massachusetts, about their shared objective to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill women, and children, including specific members of Van Hise’s family. (Tr. 139-142). At trial, the evidence showed that Asch and Meltz met in 2008, and began emailing in June of that year about a potential kidnapping. (GXs 201, 202). After establishing a relationship of trust, Meltz and Asch began to look for other like-minded men to join their group. They found Van Hise who shared their interest in kidnapping and torturing women and children, and began communicating with him, as well. At some point before the spring of 2012, Asch and Van Hise met in person, and crystallized their agreement to kidnap, rape, and murder a woman. (See, e.g., GX 361-T). During the summer of 2012, Van Hise and Meltz, and Van Hise and Asch discussed, over email, the kidnapping of members of Van Hise’s family, including the children. (See, e.g., GXs 203, 204, 205, 209, 210, 214, 215, 216, 217). In October 2012, the FBI approached Van Hise at his home, and he agreed to speak with agents. (Tr. 57). Van Hise admitted that he used the internet to communicate with other people who had an interest in kidnapping, raping and killing women; that he was able to identify the people who were serious about committing a kidnapping and other violence; and that he sought out people whom he believed were serious about going through with acts of violence. (Tr. 64-65). Van Hise also told the FBI that he had been in touch with at least one person who Van Hise believed was actively looking for an opportunity to kidnap, rape and kill a woman. (Tr. 65). In December 2012, at the request and direction of the FBI, Van Hise emailed Meltz and Asch, and introduced “Darren” – an FBI agent working in an undercover capacity, claiming to have an interest in kidnapping and raping women. (Tr. 431-32). Soon thereafter, Darren began communicating directly with Asch by email. (Tr. 432-34; GX 802). Email communication led to phone conversations (Tr. 436-37), and then to a series of in-person meetings during which Asch and the FBI undercover agent discussed a kidnapping scheme. (

See, e.g.

, GXs 352-T, 353-T, 355-T.) In February 2013, because Asch had previously suggested to Darren certain methods of identifying random female victims to kidnap, in the interests of public safety, Darren proposed targeting a specific female, who was actually an FBI agent working in an undercover capacity (the “Female Undercover”). (Tr. 491).

1

“Tr.” refers to the trial transcript in the above-captioned case; “GX” refers to Government Exhibits introduced at trial.


Page 3

Together, Darren and Asch “surveilled” the Female Undercover, and during one such surveillance Asch told Darren that she “has to die.” (Tr.506-07). Through Asch, Darren connected by telephone with Meltz (Tr. 499), and they began to discuss the kidnapping plan. During this same period, pursuant to a Court order, the FBI began to monitor phone calls received on, and made from, Asch’s landline. (Tr. 489-90). The FBI intercepted a number of calls between Asch and Meltz in which Asch and Meltz discussed the kidnapping of the Female Undercover, and Meltz provided to Asch strategic advice on how to commit a successful kidnapping without getting caught. (

See¸e.g.,

GXs 401-T, 402-T, 404-T, 405-T, 409-T.) Meltz, for example, advised Asch on the purchase of a stun gun (GX 402-T, 404-T) and suggesting avoiding toll roads once the victim had been abducted and forced into the kidnappers’ van. (GX 402-T). Based on Meltz’s advice, on April 6, 2013, Asch traveled from New York to a gun show in Allentown, Pennsylvania and purchased a stun gun. (GX 604K, Tr. 812-819). While Asch and Meltz were communicating over the telephone about the kidnapping, Darren and Asch continued to meet in-person. At a meeting on March 13, 2013, Asch brought a number of supplies that he said could be used to subdue, abduct and torture the victim. (GXs 504, 603, 603A – 603Z, Tr. 536-553). At a meeting on April 15, 2013, Asch brought a number of other items to use in the kidnapping, including a stun gun. (GXs 604, 604A-604K, 605, 605A – 605M, 606, 606A - 606 G, Tr. 579-591). At that meeting, Asch was arrested. (Tr. 581-582). Meltz had been arrested the day before, after meeting with Darren. During this meeting, Darren and Meltz discussed the kidnapping, and Meltz provided advice on how best to dispose of the victim’s body after she had been kidnapping and killed. (Tr. 574-576). On April 15, 2013, Asch was arrested pursuant to a Complaint, presented before a United States Magistrate Judge, and detained on consent. Asch subsequently sought bail before Your Honor, and that application was denied. A Grand Jury in this District returned several indictments and superseding indictments, under docket number 12 Cr. 847 (PGG). On September 18, 2013, the Grand Jury returned Indictment S4 12 Cr. 847 (PGG) in two counts, both of which charged the violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c). Specifically, Count One charged Van Hise, Asch and Meltz with participating in a conspiracy between spring 2011 through January 2013 to kidnap, rape and kill members of Van Hise’s family. Count Two charged Asch and Meltz with conspiring between January 2013 and April 15, 2013, to kidnap, rape and kill the Female Undercover. On January 16, 2014, Meltz entered a plea to a superseding information charging him in two counts with participating in kidnapping conspiracies in violation of Title 18, United States Code, § Section 371. This Court sentenced Meltz to the statutory maximum term of 120 months’ imprisonment. Van Hise and Asch proceeded to trial in February 2014. On March 14, 2014 a jury returned guilty verdicts against Van Hise and Asch on Count One, and against Asch on Count Two. Van Hise and Asch both filed post-trial motions seeking a judgment of acquittal on
