## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged multiple Church of Scientology “Guardian’s Office” officials with conspiracies and related offenses arising from covert efforts to infiltrate federal agencies, steal government documents, and obstruct investigations.
- The charged conduct included covert entries into government offices, use of false identification, copying and removal of records, concealment and destruction of evidence, false statements, and related obstruction activity.
- A key investigative step was a search of Scientology premises conducted under a detailed warrant listing numerous categories of documents tied to specified offenses and the alleged conspiracies.
- In district court, defendants moved to suppress evidence on the ground that the warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant and that its execution was unreasonable.
- Defendants also sought (i) recusal of the trial judge based on asserted bias or appearance of bias and (ii) disqualification of the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia based on alleged victim status and asserted conflicts (including one prosecutor’s prior private employment and related civil litigation naming prosecutors).
- Defendants were convicted pursuant to a disposition agreement and appealed, including a claim by one defendant that a later conspiracy charge was barred by an earlier agreement promising no further charges arising out of the same events.

## Issues

1. Whether an earlier plea/disposition agreement promising no further charges arising from certain events barred a later conspiracy prosecution when broader conduct was allegedly concealed at the time of the earlier agreement.
2. Whether a warrant listing extensive categories of documents related to specified crimes was an unconstitutional general warrant, or was executed unreasonably under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether the trial judge was required to recuse for actual bias or an appearance of partiality.
4. Whether the district court was required to disqualify the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office based on asserted victim status, alleged imputed conflicts from prior private employment, or related civil suits against prosecutors.
5. Whether the government breached a sentencing term “not to allocute” by making limited responsive statements correcting defense characterizations of negotiations.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The court held that the later conspiracy prosecution was not barred because the government’s earlier promise could not reasonably be read to cover broader conspiratorial conduct that was concealed and later misrepresented.
- The court upheld the warrant as sufficiently particularized and tied to evidence of specific crimes, and held that the searches satisfied Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
- The court found no adequate basis for judicial recusal; adverse rulings and case management did not establish actual bias or an appearance of bias.
- The court rejected office-wide prosecutorial disqualification, finding no showing of an actual conflict requiring removal of the entire office.
- The court held the government did not violate the non-allocution term by making limited, corrective remarks responsive to defense submissions.

## Legal Principles

- Plea and disposition agreements are construed in light of what the government reasonably understood at the time of the bargain; a defendant cannot expand a “no further charges” term to cover broader crimes the government could not reasonably know because of the defendant’s concealment or deception.
- A warrant is not a general warrant merely because it is broad in scope; it must be assessed for particularity and linkage to evidence of specified offenses, and the Fourth Amendment’s ultimate requirement is reasonableness in issuance and execution.
- Judicial recusal requires a showing of actual bias or a sufficient appearance of partiality; adverse rulings and firm case management alone are insufficient.
- Disqualifying an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office requires a concrete, case-specific conflict; generalized “victim” theories, collateral civil suits naming prosecutors, or a single prosecutor’s prior private employment do not, without more, justify office-wide disqualification.
- A promise not to allocute at sentencing generally bars affirmative sentencing advocacy, but does not necessarily prevent the government from responding to inaccuracies or correcting the record.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld convictions arising from a coordinated campaign to obtain and conceal government documents, concluding that the warrant was particularized and reasonably executed, the later conspiracy charge was not barred by an earlier agreement given concealed conduct, and neither recusal nor office-wide prosecutorial disqualification nor a sentencing-breach claim warranted relief.


United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1981)