Chief District Judge Robert Molloy has denied a motion to dismiss or sever first-degree murder and other counts against Richardson Dangleben Jr., writing in an order this week that even though the charges are territorial offenses, the federal court has jurisdiction to hear them.
A grand jury indicted Dangleben in October 2023, charging him with multiple violations of federal and territorial laws in connection with the shooting death of V.I. Police Detective Delberth Phipps Jr. on July 4 that year, and the assault of another officer who also responded to the 911 call concerning a man with a gun in Hospital Ground on St. Thomas.
The charges include the federal offenses of use of a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death (Count 1); discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (Counts 2 and 3); possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 4); possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number (Count 5); and receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison (Count 6).
The territorial offenses charged included first-degree murder (Count 7), first-degree assault (Counts 8 and 11), third-degree assault (Counts 9 and 12), attempted first-degree murder (Count 10), and wearing body armor during the commission of a violent crime (Count 13).
Dangleben has pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial Oct. 6.
Public Defender Matthew Campbell filed a motion to dismiss the territorial counts in October, which the Justice Department opposed in a response in January. The DOJ subsequently filed a superseding indictment in April amending Count One — use of a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death — to include a federal predicate offense, namely possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
On Wednesday, Molloy wrote in his order denying Dangleben’s motion to dismiss that United States Code allows the court to exercise “supplemental jurisdiction concurrently [with the courts of the Virgin Islands] over territorial offenses that grow out of conduct that also offends federal criminal law,” citing Title 48, Section 1612[c].
“Thus, if the territorial offenses alleged in the Indictment in this case are ‘of the same or similar character . . . or based on the same act or transaction’ as any of the federal offenses, then this Court would have jurisdiction over those territorial offenses,” Molloy wrote.
Additionally, “events that have transpired since Dangleben filed his motion have largely mooted his requested relief,” said Molloy, including the new predicate offense charged in April, making severance of Count 1 “no longer viable,” and stipulations entered between the parties in which he withdrew his motion to sever Count Six — receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment.
(The latter concerns a separate case in V.I. Superior Court in which Dangleben is charged with the February 2023 shooting death of Keith Jennings.)
“In light of the procedural posture of this case and based on a review of the Superseding Indictment, the Court finds that it clearly has jurisdiction over the territorial offenses,” Molloy wrote, noting that because, “at a minimum, the territorial offenses as alleged in Counts Seven-Thirteen ‘are of the same or similar character’ or are based on ‘the same act or transaction’ as alleged in Count One and/or Count Six, the Court has concurrent jurisdiction over all of the territorial offenses.”
Moreover, he said, “even if the federal offenses were dismissed or severed, that would not affect the Court having concurrent jurisdiction over the territorial offenses under Section 1612(c),” before quoting a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in United States v. Gillette, which says that “all that is required is that there be a sufficient nexus between the local charges and ‘an offense or offenses against one or more of the statutes over which the District Court of the Virgin Islands has jurisdiction.’”
Thus, “consistent with the teachings of Gillette, the United States was not required to include the federal offenses to charge and prosecute Dangleben with the local charges in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. … Because the Court concludes that there is a sufficient nexus between the local charges and the federal charges in this case, the Court has jurisdiction over the local charges. Accordingly, the dismissal or severance of the federal charges would be of no legal consequence,” Molloy wrote in denying the motion.
