Court filing — No. 1:24-cr-10178 (Dkt. 51, D. Mass.)
Full text
Case 1:24-cr-10178-FDS Document 51 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) Criminal No.
) 24-10178-FDS
DEAN A. TRAN, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE AND FOUR
OF THE INDICTMENT ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS
SAYLOR, C.J.
Defendant Dean Tran has been charged in a five-count indictment with obstruction of
justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (Count One) and making false statements in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (Count Four). He has moved to dismiss these counts, contending that
they are barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as a result of his prior
prosecution and conviction for wire fraud and filing false tax returns. For the following reasons,
the motion will be denied.
The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a person from being tried or punished twice for the
same conduct. U.S. Const. amend. V (“[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb . . . .”). Defendant asserts that the present prosecution
would constitute a second prosecution for the same offenses tried in Tran I (Docket No. 23-cr-
10299-FDS).
Tran I involved charges of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and filing false tax returns
under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). This case involves charges of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C.
Case 1:24-cr-10178-FDS Document 51 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 2
§ 1512(c)(2) and making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Those are
distinct sets of offenses for double jeopardy purposes.
Offenses are considered distinct, and thus separate prosecutions for each are allowed,
when each offense “requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not.” Blockburger v.
United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). The Tran I offenses required proof of defendant’s use
of interstate wires and filing of tax returns, elements that are not a part of the offenses charged in
this case. The obstruction charge in this case requires proving the existence of an official
proceeding, an element not part of either offense charged in Tran I. And in this case, the false
statement charge is based on conduct that is distinct from that which directly supported the false
tax return and wire fraud charges in Tran I, and thus is not barred by the Double Jeopardy
Clause.
Defendant’s complaints about the likely overlap of evidence between the two cases are
inapposite. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that, “mere overlap in proof between two
prosecutions does not establish a double jeopardy violation.” United States v. Felix, 503 U.S.
378, 386 (1992). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts One and Four of the
indictment on double jeopardy grounds is DENIED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: November 12, 2024 Chief Judge, United States District Court
2