OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A federal appeals court has overturned the obstruction convictions of Leatrice De Bruhl-Daniels, a former Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agent who was found guilty of sharing sensitive information with a suspected terrorist.
This decision follows a crucial ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year regarding the January 6 Capitol breach case, which redefined the parameters of obstruction charges under federal law.
On October 11, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated three counts of obstruction against De Bruhl-Daniels, following the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Fischer v. United States. The high court’s decision clarified that to secure a conviction under obstruction statutes, prosecutors must demonstrate that a person’s actions directly impeded an official proceeding by tampering with physical evidence or documents, Newsweek reported.
De Bruhl-Daniels had been convicted of alerting Nadal Diya, a Syrian national suspected of terrorism, that he was under FBI investigation. She also informed Diya that he would be arrested if he entered the United States and disclosed that his business associate was also under investigation.
Court documents indicated that De Bruhl had developed a romantic relationship with Diya, complicating her professional conduct, the outlet’s report continued.
The obstruction charges stemmed from the statute that prohibits the corrupt alteration or concealment of evidence or “otherwise obstruct[ing]” any official proceeding. Prosecutors contended that De Bruhl’s actions compromised “witness testimony and intangible information” by alerting Diya to the FBI’s investigation. However, in light of the Fischer decision, the appellate court determined that this did not meet the legal standards required for obstruction.
“Conjecture that a tipped-off target could destroy evidence is not sufficient to show evidence impairment,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, who authored the unanimous opinion.
The government had speculated that Diya might have destroyed evidence or taken measures to evade law enforcement, but Wilson asserted that these claims were merely speculative. He further pointed out that Diya’s visa application to enter the U.S. had been denied, indicating that De Bruhl’s warning did not change the course of events.
Judges Edith Jones and Edith Brown Clement concurred with the ruling, which sent the case back to the district court for resentencing on other charges. Although the three obstruction counts were vacated, De Bruhl still faces nine other convictions related to her conduct in the case.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment. Attorneys for De Bruhl-Daniels were not immediately available for comment following the ruling.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that protected Texas law enforcement officers from liability in the arrest of a local citizen journalist who sought information from a police source.
The case involves journalist Priscilla Villarreal, known to her readers in Laredo, Texas, as “Lagordiloca.” It raises important questions about the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press versus the doctrine of qualified immunity, which offers legal protections to police and other government officials, CBS News reported.
Villarreal’s challenge garnered attention from various reporters, major news organizations, and journalism nonprofits, all arguing that the right to seek information from public officials is essential to the practice of journalism.
In its short order, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling that shielded the police officers involved in her arrest while mandating further proceedings at the lower court level.
Villarreal stated in response to the high court’s order that the ruling “marks a significant step toward rectifying the wrongs I have faced.”
JT Morris, an attorney with The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is representing Villarreal, hailed the ruling.
“This case is vital for free speech, a free press, and ensuring officials are accountable when they trample the First Amendment,” he said.
