United States v. Chen

United States v. Chen

Opinion

 [*152]  ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On January 14, 2021, law enforcement officers arrested the defendant, Gang Chen, a longtime MIT professor, on a federal complaint charging him with various felony offenses arising from his alleged failure to fully disclose to the government the extent of his relationship with China as it related to his academic work and research. At a press conference held later the same day, the then U.S. Attorney, Andrew Lelling¹ , made a number of statements regarding the case which the defendant contends improperly commented on the merits of the case, were "false" and "highly inflammatory," and questioned his "character and reputation." The U.S. Attorney's Office also issued a press release which the defendant contends [**2]  misleadingly placed benign written comments of the defendant in a pejorative context. The defendant alleges a violation of a Local Rule bearing on professional responsibility, Local Rule 83.2.1, and moves for sanctions against Mr. Lelling and the U.S. Attorney's Office. In particular he asks the court to (1) publicly reprimand Mr. Lelling for the comments made during the press conference, (2) require the Government to remove or appropriately revise the press release, and (3) require Mr. Lelling to follow Local Rule 83.2.1 going forward. (D. 23). The government in opposition argues that its oral and written statements were entirely proper and did not run afoul of any rules of professional conduct.

 [*153]  As in other high-profile cases where courts are called upon to assess the appropriateness of pre-trial public statements, the court must determine whether the former U.S. Attorney's conduct "strayed so close to the edge of the [governing] rules...that [the Defendant] has a non-frivolous argument that he fell over the edge to the Defendant's prejudice." United States v. Silver, 103 F. Supp. 3d 370, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (declining to dismiss indictment based on prosecutorial statements but issuing strong words of caution). I find here that while the government's statements in hindsight could [**3]  have been more carefully chosen, particularly to the extent they plausibly could allow one to infer that the defendant was allegedly more loyal to China than to the United States--a notion the government denies it was seeking to advance-they nonetheless do not rise to a level warranting sanctions. The motion for sanctions therefore will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.