Elements of the Crime
The prosecution presented a case of cyberstalking and interstate stalking against the defendants, David Thomas Matusiewicz, Lenore Matusiewicz, and Amy Gonzalez. The court proved that their alleged conduct of cyberstalking resulted in the death of Christine Belford, the ex-wife to David Matusiewicz. The court heard that after David and Christine had earlier divorced in 2006, they were awarded the parents joint custody to their three children. A year later, David and Matusiewicz, under the aide of his mother Lenore, kidnapped the children and went into hiding in Nicaragua ( Cox, 2014) . A contested battle ensued, where authorities intervened by returning the children to Christine with David pleading guilty to the charges of parental kidnapping and bank fraud in 2009. Subject to the findings of the kidnapping charges, the Delaware Family Court found it right to terminate the parental rights that David held for the children ( DeMatteo et al., 2017) . The government was convinced that after the federal criminal proceedings had commenced, David began accusing Christine of sexual abuse of the children, a charge that was dismissed at the Delaware Family Court in 2010.
The court also proved that from the time his parental rights were terminated, David Matusiewicz alongside his accomplices, Lenore, and Amy Gonzalez conducted a surveillance and harassment campaign against Christine Belford ( McCall & Weede, 2016) . The evidence presented showed that the defendants used online platforms to post accusations against Christine Belford, while others were sent to the school that one of the children attended, where the defendants sought to solicit the assistance of a friend to Belford to make a visit and confirm the allegations ( Cox, 2014) . The defendants, David, and Lenore accompanied by David's father Thomas Matusiewicz traveled to Delaware for the family court hearing, where Thomas shot and killed Christine Belford at the Delaware New Castle County Courthouse. After the incident, Thomas shot himself in what was considered as a suicide ( DeMatteo et al., 2017) . In the prosecution, the defendants, David Matusiewicz, Lenore Matusiewicz, and Amy Gonzalez were not charged with the murder of the deceased, but rather with the crimes associated with alleged surveillance and harassment under the federal cyberstalking statute 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A(2), 2261 (b) & 2. They were also found to have violated the interstate stalking statute U.S.C. §§ 2261A ( 1 ), 2261 A ( 1 ) that resulted in death.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Defenses Claimed
The defendants cited the Sixth Amendment, where they sought a right trial by an impartial jury. The statute produces that according to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a), the court may find the need of transferring the proceedings upon the defendant's motion to another district of the court is satisfied with the existence of prejudice against the defendant that could lead to unfair trial ( McCall & Weede, 2016) . The defendants cited that they could not receive an impartial and fair trial at the Delaware District Court because of the nature of the shootings and the coverage of the murder case. The defendants also cited that the media coverage could sabotage the jury process in the Delaware District Court ( Cox, 2014) . For example, the defendants presented excerpts in their briefs from media coverage that described the shootings as having stemmed from the long-run custody disputes. The defendants were of the view that the court should have taken note that apart from the information from the mainstream media outlets, there were YouTube videos in which Lenore Matusiewicz and the close relatives had posted their views about Christine Belford and the way she had treated her children ( DeMatteo et al., 2017) . This consideration would carry weight against the argument of the defendant that the information in the public domain on the case was grossly one-sided and prejudicial.
Constitutional Protection Issues
Miranda warnings are the constitutional protection issues identified in the Matusiewicz cyberstalking case. In such constitutional protection issues, a notification is customarily given by the police to the suspects in the criminal case or during a custodial interrogation, where the suspects get to know their right to silence ( DeMatteo et al., 2017) . The defendants were notified about their right to refuse to respond questions and provide information to the law enforcement officials on whether they could have foreseen their father’s sinister plan of shooting and killing Christine Belford and her friend Laura ( Cox, 2014) . They were also informed of their right not to respond to their knowledge about the father's sinister plan of committing suicide after killing the two.
IV. Case Brief
Title and Citation
United States District Court, Delaware District: the United States of America, Plaintiff, V. David Thomas Matusiewicz et al., Defendants. CRIMINAL ACTION No. 13-83, signed on 21 st Dec 2015.
Facts of the Case
In the case, the defendants including David Matusiewicz, Lenore Matusiewicz, and Amy Gonzalez were found to have violated the provisions in federal law against interstate stalking and cyberstalking, which resulted in the death of Christine Belford and her friend Laura ( DeMatteo et al., 2017) . The government had to concede in its trial brief that several decisions are addressing the provisions of the death results under the statute of the law and that not of these evidence delineates what it proved in establishing that the death of the victims resulted from stalking and cyberstalking as stipulated under § 2261A . The court must also determine that the causation of the death is both actual causations as defined by the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause, where the crime gives the requirement that it was not mere conduct but a specified result of the conduct of the defendant ( McCall & Weede, 2016) . In the case of actual causation, there must be proof that the death would not have occurred in the absence of cyberstalking and that it is for the defendant’s conduct that the death occurred.
Issues
The primary issue that is presented in the case is the first impression for the federal trial court under the statute of cyberstalking. In this case, there is the requirement of the establishment of proof to the jury that the conduct of the defendant resulted in the death of the victim ( McCall & Weede, 2016) . This is a supplemental opinion that forms the foundation for detailed reasoning regarding the instructions at the jurisdiction of the jury ( Cox, 2014) . The jury must determine that since § 2261 (b) (1) enhances the optimal sentences exposing the defendants to the case; it is an element that must be critically analyzed beyond a reasonable doubt to vindicate the conduct of the accused and its implications on the victim.
Holding
In its holding, the District Court, McHugh, held that in the course of establishing that that conduct of the defendant led to the death of the victim, the government must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death resulted from the defendant's conduct in both a real and meaningful way.
Reasoning
The reasoning was reached at by citing other cases which acted as the supplemental opinion that could outline in more detail the reasoning behind what was held in this case. The court cited Burrage v. the United States (2014), Alleyne v. the United States (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000).
Analysis
The facts of the case are found to meet the legal criteria for the prosecution given that there was a criminal case that had been predetermined by evidence. The criminal case was decided by the prosecution through citing of the federal statute in which interstate and cyberstalking campaign led to the death of the victim ( Cox, 2014) . The court also determined that the defendants were fit to stand trial, which was part of the legal requirement for prosecution.
VI. My Judgment
I concede with the decision of the court using the evidence presented during the trial of the case that Ms. Belford's death would have resulted from the charges to which the defendants were accused. In this case, I agree that the focus on foreseeability is clear given the facts presented that touch upon the topic of proximate cause in the context of a criminal offense. In this case, it was foreseeable that the conspiracy to cyberstalking carried out by the perpetrators would lead to the harm or the consequent death of the victim. This means that the use of the language that the death of Christine was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offense is acceptable and that the foreseeability is related to the proximate cause. Moreover, I would contend with the decision bearing in mind that the actual causation or the cause-in-fact warrantied the conviction. In this case, the conduct of the defendants was determined not just by the actual, but the legal framework to be the cause of the death of the victim. I also agree with the court decision and the results of the conviction, bearing in mind that the harm including the death of the victims would not have occurred in the absence of their conspiracy to commit interstate cyberstalking. This means that it was for the defendant’s conduct that the harm occurred, resulting in the death of the said victims. Moreover, the deliberate intervention and conduct of the third party (Thomas Matusiewicz) resulted from the conduct of the defendants, which led to their exclusion from the murder case and the eventual settlement on cyberstalking charges.
References
Cox, C. (2014). Protecting victims of cyberstalking, cyber harassment, and online impersonation through prosecutions and effective laws. Jurimetrics , 277-302.
DeMatteo, D., Wagage, S., & Fairfax-Columbo, J. (2017). Cyberstalking: are we on the same (web) page? A comparison of statutes, case law, and public perception. Journal of aggression, conflict and peace research , 9 (2), 83-94.
McCall, J. M., & Weede, S. A. (2016). United States v. Matusiewicz: Lessons Learned from the First Federal Prosecution of Cyberstalking Resulting in Death. US Att'ys Bull. , 64 , 17.
