UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Criminal Action No. 21-730 (CKK)
DANEAN MACANDREW,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(December 27, 2022)
This criminal case is one of nearly one thousand arising from the insurrection at the
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. For her actions at the Capitol on January 6, Defendant
Danean Macandrew is charged by information with four misdemeanors. Before the Court is
Defendant’s [31] Motion to Dismiss the Information for Multiplicity, or to Compel the
Government to Elect Among Multiplicitous [sic] Counts. Defendant argues that each of these
charges are multiplicative, i.e., that to be convicted of more than one of them would violate the
Double Jeopardy Clause. Because each count is sufficiently distinct from the other, Defendant’s
challenge fails.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(ii), a Defendant may, before
trial, move to dismiss a charging instrument in whole or in part based on the instrument
“charging the same offense in more than one count (multiplicity).” Any such effort faces a
particularly high bar. “A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute
requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under
either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.”
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). As another court of this jurisdiction has
concluded, there is no such problem here. United States v. Ballenger, Crim. A. No. 21-719
1
(JEB), 2022 WL 14807767, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2022).
To illustrate how each charge contains elements distinct from the others, consider the
following chart of the offenses charged in the Superseding Information:
Counts Proscribed Conduct Mental State Additional Facts
Required Required
1. 18 U.S.C. § Entering or remaining Knowingly To do so in a “restricted
1752(a)(1) without lawful building” or area, i.e., an
authority area that is “posted,
cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted” and
is (1) the White House
grounds or buildings or
Vice President’s
residence or grounds; (2)
an area where a person
protected by the Secret
Service is or will be
temporarily visiting; or
(3) an area restricted in
conjunction with an
event designated as a
special event of national
significance 1
2. 18 U.S.C. § Engaging in Knowingly, and with To do so in or near a
1752(a)(2) disorderly or the specific intent to restricted building or area
disruptive conduct impede or disrupt The conduct in fact
Government business impedes or disrupts
Government business
3. 40 U.S.C. § Uttering loud, Willfully, knowingly, To do so in any Capitol
5104(e)(2)(D) threatening, or and with the specific building or on Capitol
abusive language, or intent to impede, grounds
engaging in disrupt, or disturb
disorderly or Congressional
disruptive conduct proceedings
4. 40 U.S.C. § Parading, Willfully and To do so in any Capitol
5104(e)(2)(G) demonstrating or knowingly building.
picketing
The differences between these charges are myriad, but the Court will note a few. Only
1
18 U.S.C. § 1752(c)(1).
2
Count 4 criminalizes parading, demonstrating, or picketing, so it is distinct from the rest. Accord
Ballenger, 2022 WL 14807767, at *2. Counts 3 and 4 are distinct from Counts 1 and 2 because
they require a showing of willfulness. Counts 3 and 4 also differ from Counts 1 and 2 because
the latter criminalize conduct in a Capitol building or area no matter whether it is also a
“restricted area” when the prohibited conduct occurred. Count 2 is distinct from Count 1
because it requires a showing of specific intent where Count 1 does not, and because Count 2
criminalizes different conduct from Count 1. Accord id. As such, no one count in the
Superseding Information is multiplicative of the other.
Therefore, the Court shall DENY Defendant’s [31] Motion to Dismiss the Information
for Multiplicity, or to Compel the Government to Elect Among Multiplicitous [sic] Counts. A
separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: December 27, 2022 /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
3