DOJ, Dangleben Defense Tangle Over Death Penalty Being Back on Table
The government’s sudden decision to consider the death penalty against Richardson Dangleben Jr. after waiving that right more than a year ago is based on improper political considerations, making the attempted reversal arbitrary and capricious, according to a brief his attorney filed in V.I. District Court.
2025-04-02 13:16:49 - VI News Staff
The Justice Department contends that far from a “bait-and-switch” tactic, this is simply a case where the administration of President Donald Trump decided to review all previous no-seek decisions made by the outgoing administration.
Dangleben faces first-degree murder, assault and gun charges in the July 4, 2023, shooting death of V.I. Police Detective Delberth Phipps Jr. in Hospital Ground on St. Thomas. He has pleaded not guilty, and federal prosecutors signaled last February that they would not seek the death penalty.
However, following a Jan. 20 executive order by Trump entitled “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi notified all Justice Department employees that a Capital Review Committee would be evaluating all decisions to not seek such punishment in eligible cases charged between Jan. 20, 2021 and Jan. 19, 2025 that have not yet resulted in a conviction.
The V.I. Justice Department subsequently asked for a stay of all proceedings for 120 days, which Dangleben’s attorney, Public Defender Matthew Campbell, opposed, prompting U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Alan Teague to order the defense to file a supplemental brief addressing the issues of judicial estoppel/laches by March 20, and the government to file its response by Friday.
As the Cornell Law Review explains, judicial estoppel “prevents a party from asserting a position in one legal proceeding that directly contradicts a position taken by that same party in an earlier proceeding,” while laches — derived from the Old French laschesse, meaning “remissness” or “dilatoriness” — concerns an unreasonable delay in pursuing a legal claim, to the detriment of the opposing party.
Considering the death penalty against Dangleben a year after saying it would not has served to “pull the rug out from under him based on a whim,” according to Campbell’s brief. Had he known the government might reverse course, Dangleben would never have requested a continuance when he was set to go to trial last October and the matter would now be moot, it says.