United States v. Valle
301 F.R.D. 53 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a conspiracy conviction based solely on online communications, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered into a genuine agreement and possessed the specific intent to commit the underlying crime. This burden is not met if the allegedly criminal communications are substantively indistinguishable from other communications the government concedes are fantasy, are replete with fantastical elements, and result in no real-world steps toward consummation.
Facts:
- Gilberto Valle, a New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer, engaged in numerous internet chats on a sexual fetish website, Dark Fetish Network (DFN), and via email and messenger services over nearly a year.
- In these communications with at least 24 individuals, Valle graphically discussed kidnapping, torturing, raping, murdering, and cannibalizing women he knew, including his wife and college friends, often sharing their real photos.
- The government conceded that Valle's communications with 21 of these individuals were nothing more than fantasy role-play.
- Valle communicated with three alleged co-conspirators—Michael Van Hise, 'Aly Khan,' and 'Moody Blues'—who were located on different continents and never met or spoke with Valle outside of the internet.
- In these chats, Valle consistently lied about his identity, location, job, marital status, and possession of resources such as a van, a secluded house, a human-sized oven, and a soundproofed basement.
- The alleged co-conspirators discussed specific dates, prices, and methods for kidnapping specific women.
- None of the planned kidnappings ever occurred, and the 'agreed-upon' dates for these kidnappings repeatedly passed without any comment, inquiry, or follow-up from Valle or any of his alleged co-conspirators.
- On one occasion, Valle used his access to a restricted law enforcement database to search for information about a woman he had discussed in his chats, for which he had no legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- FBI agents arrested Gilberto Valle on a criminal complaint.
- A federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Valle with conspiracy to commit kidnapping and with exceeding authorized access to a federal computer database.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- At the close of the government's case, Valle's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a); the Court reserved its decision.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
- Following the verdict, Valle renewed his motion for a judgment of acquittal and, in the alternative, filed a motion for a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the evidence of online communications, which are substantively indistinguishable from the defendant's admittedly fantastical role-playing chats and which resulted in no real-world actions, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant formed a genuine agreement and possessed the specific intent to commit kidnapping?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardephe, District Judge
No. A conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnapping cannot be sustained because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gilberto Valle entered into a genuine agreement or had the specific intent to actually kidnap a woman. The evidence is insufficient to distinguish Valle's allegedly 'real' criminal plots from his extensive and admittedly fantastical role-playing. The government did not provide the jury with a sufficient evidentiary basis for distinguishing chats reflecting 'real' conspiratorial agreements from those that are mere fantasy, especially given that both sets of chats share the same features, including discussions of prices, dates, surveillance, and methods. Furthermore, the alleged conspiracy is replete with false, fictitious, and fantastical elements, such as a non-existent cabin, a human-size oven, and a soundproofed basement. Crucially, no real-world, non-Internet-based steps were ever taken to kidnap anyone, and the fact that planned kidnapping dates repeatedly passed without comment is powerful evidence that all participants understood no actual kidnapping would take place. When the evidence gives 'equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence,' a reasonable jury must entertain a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent for applying conspiracy law to conduct existing solely in cyberspace, particularly within communities centered on fantasy. It raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutors, requiring them to do more than present disturbing online speech; they must demonstrate a clear distinction between fantasy and a 'crystallized' criminal intent. The court's reasoning emphasizes that the absence of any real-world actions or follow-up is powerful evidence of a lack of genuine agreement. This decision protects speech, even of the most deviant and misogynistic nature, from being prosecuted as a criminal conspiracy without sufficient evidence that the 'agreement' was intended to leave the realm of fantasy.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Valle