Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Fitzpatrick

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

February 23, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PETER FITZPATRICK, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the following motions filed by the Defendant:

. Notice of Request for Production of Statements and/or Jenck's Act Material, filed January 17, 2018 (Doc. 25);
. Motion for Disclosure of Prior Act Evidence, filed January 17, 2018 (Doc. 26);
. Motion and Supporting Memorandum for Discovery of Records or Reports and Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinions, filed January 17, 2018 (Doc. 27);
. Notice of Brady Request and Supporting Memorandum to Produce Favorable Evidence, filed January 17, 2018 (Doc. 28);

         Having considered the parties' written arguments and applicable law, the Court finds that some of Defendant's motions are meritorious and shall be GRANTED IN PART, but are otherwise DENIED IN PART

         BACKGROUND[1]

         On September 21, 2017, a grand jury indicted defendant with three counts of Interstate Stalking pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). The Interstate Stalking statute provides:

         Whoever--

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate…uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that--
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

         shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title. 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (emphasis added).

         A. Previous Incidents.

         Defendant was employed at the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program (“MGWRP”). On July 4, 2014, Defendant attended a party with his co-workers in Arizona. At the party, Defendant became angry and accused a co-worker of stealing his dog. Defendant allegedly yelled at the co-worker, causing the co-worker's own dog to bark at defendant. Defendant pulled out a gun and pointed it at the co-worker's dog. After this incident, the MGWRP evacuated employees from the Alpine, Arizona office and moved them to Springerville, Arizona. Defendant was arrested by Arizona state law enforcement on July 7, 2014 and charged with disorderly conduct with a weapon. Defendant resigned on July 12, 2014 in lieu of termination.

         On January 2, 2015, an informant contacted a biologist with the MGWRP and reported his or her concerns about the defendant's mental health. The informant stated he or she did not think anyone was in immediate danger, but wanted to let them know that Defendant was angry with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”). Although Defendant had not stated he was going to retaliate, the informant was concerned that the defendant may kill himself or take revenge and then kill himself. The informant stated he or she was a childhood friend of Defendant and believed Defendant might be “crazy”, but had not spoken with defendant for six months.

         On January 6, 2015, the informant contacted SA Roper. The informant stated that he had last spoken to Defendant six months prior when Defendant requested assistance in obtaining an attorney. The informant stated that Defendant seemed afraid, angry, paranoid, and seemed to be having mental issues.

         A safety briefing was held for members of the MGWRP on January 13, 2015. Employees were informed they had received information that Defendant was mentally unstable and could pose a threat to USFWS and Arizona Game and Fish Department (“AZGFD”) personnel. Employees were told that Defendant had not made any direct threats, but he was experiencing paranoia, anger, and depression. The employees were told that it did not appear that Defendant was residing in Arizona or New Mexico.

         In February 2015, federal agents visited Defendant's parents' home and also spoke to Defendant on the phone. The informant talked to another agent on April 22, 2015, and reported that he or she had spoken to defendant a few months prior, and defendant seemed to be depressed, but that the informant may have overreacted in the initial assessment. The informant told SA Roper that Defendant never made any threats or remarks about violence to anyone, except to himself.

         B. Charged Incidents.

         The incidents underlying the charges occurred approximately a year later. On February 1, 2016, Defendant sent emails, texts, and phone calls to various employees of the MGWRP, focusing primarily on the three victims in this case: J.O., S.B., and T.B.. For example, on July 12, 2016, Defendant sent an email to all three victims containing a sixteen page letter which accused the FBI and Department of Interior of investigating him. Defendant accused J.O. and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.