Chief District Judge Robert Molloy has denied the Justice Department’s request for a 120-day stay in the murder case of Richardson Dangleben Jr. in an opinion issued late Friday afternoon upbraiding the government’s last-minute bid to seek the death penalty more than a year after it said it would not.
Molloy said not only has the deadline long passed for the government to declare it would seek capital punishment, but doing so now would clearly disadvantage Dangleben who faces first-degree murder, assault and gun charges in the July 4, 2023 shooting death of V.I. Police Detective Delberth Phipps Jr. on St. Thomas.
Dangleben has pleaded not guilty, and federal prosecutors signaled last February that they would not seek the death penalty.
However, following a Jan. 20 executive order by President Donald Trump entitled “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi notified all Justice Department employees that a “Capital Review Committee” would be evaluating all decisions to not seek such punishment in eligible cases charged during the Biden Administration that have not yet resulted in a conviction.
The V.I. Justice Department subsequently asked for a 120-stay in the Dangleben case, which Public Defender Matthew Campbell strongly opposed, writing in a brief on the matter in March that considering the death penalty now, more than a year into proceedings, had effectively pulled the rug out from under his client “based on a whim.”
Moreover, had he known the government might reverse course, Dangleben would never have requested a continuance when he was set to go to trial last October and the matter would now be moot, Campbell said.
On Friday, Molloy agreed.
“The Government has provided little to no evidence to support its request for a stay of proceedings. It argues that, because the trial in this matter has been continued without date, any delay as a result of a stay is not prejudicial to Defendant. However, the Government cannot dispute that the Court and the parties proceeded for over a year under the impression that the Government would not be seeking the death penalty. The matter was set for trial for a date certain and that date was continued, in part, because of Defendant’s reliance upon the Government’s notice not to seek the death penalty,” Molloy wrote in his nine-page opinion.
“Thus, Defendant now would be prejudiced by the change of position by the Government. Rather than addressing the elements necessary to support a motion for stay, as Defendant notes, the Government focuses on timeliness rather than any authority to withdraw or amend a ‘no-seek’ notice after such a notice has been filed,” the judge said.
Moreover, because Dangleben has been proceeding according to the “no-seek” decision, “he has been without the benefit of learned counsel for over a year and, thus, his trial preparation, as well as preparation for any re-review by the Capital Review Committee, is not what it would have been had a ‘no-seek’ notice not been filed,” Molloy wrote. “Consequently, despite the fact no trial date is currently set, the prejudice to Defendant cannot be overstated. Usually, when the death penalty is a consideration, learned counsel is appointed on behalf of the defendant at the earliest opportunity possible.”
In this case, learned counsel — an attorney expert in death penalty cases — was not appointed until Feb. 24, which Molloy said was unquestionably detrimental to Dangleben.
“Having Learned Counsel assist in persuading the government not to seek the death penalty is an immensely favorable outcome for the defense. In the matter at bar, relying on the United States’ representations not to seek the death penalty, Defendant did not immediately request the appointment of Learned Counsel. Thus, Defendant has no meaningful opportunity to submit mitigation evidence now in the timeframe the Government is seeking to make a decision. Defendant’s trial preparation, therefore, has been affected and any change to the United States’ position would be detrimental thereto,” Molloy wrote.
“The Court also finds that a stay would not simplify the issues and the trial of the case. … As mentioned above, the Government is requesting a 120-day stay in order to determine whether it will be seeking the penalty of death against Dangleben. This by no means simplifies any issue pending before the Court. In fact, to the contrary, if this case were to proceed as a death-penalty case, the complexities of this case will be multiplied exponentially. It is not lost on the Court that the Government, in effect, received a de-facto stay while the parties briefed this issue coupled with the Court’s consideration of the merits of a stay,” the opinion states.
“Nonetheless, the fact remains that the court-ordered deadline for filing a Section 3593 notice has expired. In sum, the Court finds that these considerations weigh against the granting of a stay,” Molloy wrote in denying the government’s motion.
A status conference is scheduled for 11 a.m. on May 20 at which both sides “shall be prepared to discuss the scheduling of all pending motions for disposition.”
