Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

United States of America v. Samuel Gulick

Date: 03-13-2022

Case Number: 21-cr-01

Judge: Leonard P. Stark

Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware (New Castle County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:



Best Delaware Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory



Description:
Wilmington, Delaware criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with fire-bombing a Planned Parenthood facility in Newark, Delaware in January 2020.



Samuel Gulick, of Middletown, was for crimes associated with fire-bombing a Planned Parenthood facility in Newark, Delaware in January 2020.



According to court documents and statements made in open court, at approximately 2:16 a.m., on January 3, 2020, Samuel Gulick drove to the Planned Parenthood facility in Newark, Delaware. Video surveillance captured Gulick standing on the front porch of the building and spray-painting the phrase "Deus Vult” – Latin for "God Wills” – in red letters. Gulick then stepped off the front porch, lit an object and threw it at the front window. The object, a Molotov Cocktail, exploded and Gulick ran away. The fire burned for approximately one minute before self-extinguishing; the front window and porch of the building were damaged.



Law enforcement arrested Gulick the following day. At the time, Gulick was still in high school. Shortly after his arrest, the FBI's BAU performed a comprehensive threat assessment of the defendant. This included a review of his prior psychological and medical records, an independent diagnosis by a clinical forensic psychologist, and an extended in-person interview. Based on this data, BAU opined that an extended period of incarceration could entrench the defendant's mindset, without providing him with the skills needed to change his life.



Thereafter, the U.S. Attorney's Office worked with the BAU, defense counsel, U.S. Probation, and a nationally-renowned behavioral analyst to craft a long-term treatment plan to address the defendant's medical, developmental, and behavioral needs. The defendant will adhere to this plan for three years and be under court supervision. For the first year, the defendant will be housed at a Residential Reentry Center – a facility that will enable him to participate in therapy sessions in a secure environment. Thereafter, if he makes appropriate progress, Gulick will be released to a less restrictive setting.



In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Weiss stated, "This was an egregious crime. I applaud the investigative efforts of local, state, and federal law enforcement who worked quickly to identify and bring Mr. Gulick to justice. But this was a team effort in more ways than one. I also want to thank the mental health and behavioral science professionals – including those in FBI's BAU – for the hard work and many hours they devoted to this case.”



"My appreciation goes out to the multiple law enforcement agencies who quickly worked together to identify and arrest Mr. Gulick. In only a few hours following his attack, investigative operations were successful, ensuring Mr. Gulick would not pose a further threat to the citizens of Delaware.” said SAC Thomas J. Sobocinski. "Today's sentencing should serve as a deterrence to others who use violence to discourage women from receiving lawful services those facilities provide.”



"Attacking and terrorizing law-abiding citizens to achieve personal political goals is a heinous act, one which ATF and our law enforcement partners will not tolerate,” said ATF Acting Special Agent in Charge L.C Cheeks, Jr. "We are grateful that no one was injured as a result of this defendant's criminal actions and that the hard work of investigators' efforts has resulted in him being held accountable for them.”



The FBI Baltimore Division's Wilmington Resident Agency investigated the matter with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Delaware State Police, Newark Police Department, Delaware State Fire Marshal's Office, New Castle County Police Department and University of Delaware Police. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Shawn A. Weede and Ruth Mandelbaum prosecuted the case.



18 U.S.C. 248 provides, in part:



(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

(b) Penalties.—Whoever violates this section shall—

(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and

(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both;

except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

(c) Civil Remedies.—

(1) Right of action.—

(A) In general.—

Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(1) only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.

(B) Relief.—

In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.

(2) Action by attorney general of the united states.—

(A) In general.—

If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.

(B) Relief.—In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent—

(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and

(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.

(3) Actions by state attorneys general.—

(A) In general.—

If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court.

(B) Relief.—

In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).

(d) Rules of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed—

(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference;

(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this section, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or

(4) to interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws regulating the performance of abortions or other reproductive health services.

(e) Definitions.—As used in this section:

(1) Facility.—

The term "facility” includes a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility that provides reproductive health services, and includes the building or structure in which the facility is located.

(2) Interfere with.—

The term "interfere with” means to restrict a person's freedom of movement.

(3) Intimidate.—

The term "intimidate” means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.

(4) Physical obstruction.—

The term "physical obstruction” means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.

(5) Reproductive health services.—

The term "reproductive health services” means reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy.

(6) State.—

The term "State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.





Outcome:
Defendant was sentenced of 26 months in prison, to be followed by three (3) years of supervised release. The defendant was also order to participate in a structured mental-health treatment plan in a controlled environment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of United States of America v. Samuel Gulick?

The outcome was: Defendant was sentenced of 26 months in prison, to be followed by three (3) years of supervised release. The defendant was also order to participate in a structured mental-health treatment plan in a controlled environment.

Which court heard United States of America v. Samuel Gulick?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Delaware (New Castle County), DE. The presiding judge was Leonard P. Stark.

Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Samuel Gulick?

Plaintiff's attorney: United States Attorney’s Office. Defendant's attorney: Best Delaware Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.

When was United States of America v. Samuel Gulick decided?

This case was decided on March 13, 2022.