A federal appeals court has overturned obstruction convictions for Leatrice De Bruhl-Daniels, a former Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agent who was found guilty of sharing sensitive information with a suspected terrorist.
The decision comes after a pivotal ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, related to the January 6 Capitol breach case, which redefined the scope of obstruction charges under federal law.
On October 11, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated three counts of obstruction against De Bruhl-Daniels, following the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Fischer v. United States. The Supreme Court decision clarified that to convict under obstruction statutes, prosecutors must prove a person’s actions directly impaired an official proceeding by tampering with physical evidence or documents.
De Bruhl-Daniels had been convicted of warning Nadal Diya, a Syrian national suspected of terrorism, that he was under investigation by the FBI. She also informed Diya that he would be arrested if he entered the United States and revealed that his business associate was also under investigation. According to court documents, De Bruhl had become romantically involved with Diya, complicating her professional conduct.
The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., is the seat of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Branch of government. A federal appeals court has overturned obstruction convictions for Leatrice De Bruhl-Daniels, a former Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agent, who was found guilty of sharing sensitive information with a suspected terrorist.
Robert Alexander/Getty Images
The obstruction charges were based on the statute prohibiting corruptly altering or concealing evidence or “otherwise obstruct[ing]” any official proceeding. Prosecutors argued that De Bruhl’s actions impaired “witness testimony and intangible information” by tipping off Diya about the FBI’s investigation. However, in light of the Fischer decision, the appellate court found that this was insufficient to meet the legal standards for obstruction.
“Conjecture that a tipped-off target could destroy evidence is not sufficient to show evidence impairment,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, who authored the unanimous opinion. The government had speculated that Diya might have destroyed evidence or taken steps to evade law enforcement, but Wilson stated that these claims were speculative. He further noted that Diya’s visa application to enter the U.S. had been denied, and thus, De Bruhl’s warning did not alter the course of events.
Judges Edith Jones and Edith Brown Clement joined the ruling, which sent the case back to the district court for resentencing on other charges. Though the three obstruction counts were vacated, De Bruhl still faces nine other convictions related to her conduct in the case.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment. Attorneys for De Bruhl-Daniels were not immediately available for comment following the ruling.
