The Victims' Families Seek a Plea Deadline in the Boeing Criminal Case

I argue that the Crime Victims' Rights Act entitles the victims' families to know whether Boeing is really planning to go to trial ... or whether it will stick with its guilty plea.

This afternoon, I filed a motion for the Boeing 737 MAX crashes victims' families whom I represent in the criminal case against Boeing. As readers of the blog will recall from my earlier posts (e.g., here, here, and here), Boeing previously agreed to plead guilty to the charge of conspiring to defraud the FAA in connection with the safety of its 737 MAX aircraft. Boeing's criminal conspiracy caused two plane crashes, killing 346 passengers and crew in what the federal district court judge handling the case (O'Connor, J.) has described as the "deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history." According to recent media reports, Boeing is now trying to walk back from its earlier plan to plead guilty. Judge O'Connor has set a trial date of June 23.

In today's motion, I argue that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) entitles the victims' families to know in advance whether Boeing truly intends to go to trial.  Here's the introduction to my motion:

Naoise Connolly Ryan et al. (the "victims' families" or "families") … respectfully file this motion for the Court to set a deadline for any proposed plea agreement or other pre-trial resolution—e.g., an Ellis deadline. See United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 864 (5th Cir. 1977) ("The [district] court [has] the prerogative to make and strictly enforce a deadline on plea bargaining.")). The families respectfully request an Ellis deadline of May 5, 2025. On the unique facts of this case, such a deadline is required to protect the victims' families' rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act (CVRA) to be treated with fairness, to be free from unreasonably delayed proceedings, and to not be excluded from any trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(3), (7), (8). Grieving families need advance notice of whether this case is really going to trial so that they can begin the process of preparing to exercise their right to attend the trial. Also, an Ellis deadline will permit the Court to properly discharge its duty to review—and accept or reject—any proposed pre-trial resolution.

The motion raises an important issue about the treatment of crime victims (and, in death cases, their families) in the plea bargaining process. All too often, the parties in criminal cases drag out negotiations, with little regard for the consequences of the delays on the victims. In an effort to address this concern, Congress added a provision to the CVRA giving crime victims in federal cases the right to "proceedings free from unreasonable delay." As recounted in the motion, the CVRA's Senate sponsors explained that "too often … delays in criminal proceedings occur for the mere convenience of the parties and those delays reach beyond the time needed for defendant's due process or the Government's need to prepare. The result of such delays is that victims cannot begin to put the crime behind them and they continue to be victimized. It is not right to hold crime victims under the stress and pressure of future court proceedings merely because it is convenient for the parties …." 150 CONG. REC. S4260-01l) (April 22, 2024) (colloquy between Senators Kyl and Feinstein).

As I argue in today's motion, Boeing has had ample time—literally years—to resolve the conspiracy charge against it. Boeing first began negotiations over contemplated criminal charges in 2020, producing the illegally negotiated deferred plea agreement (DPA) that kicked off the case in early January 2021. After years of litigation about the effect of the victims' rights violation (including a published decision in the Fifth Circuit), Boeing violated its DPA obligations. Boeing's intransigence produced another round of plea negotiations, and the company finally presented to the district court a proposed plea agreement on July 24, 2024. The district court rejected Boeing's proposed plea on December 5, 2024. Since then, Boeing has requested multiple extensions of time for its legions of lawyers to do more wheeling and dealing.

As noted in the motion, in January of this year, new leaders took office in the Justice Department. But from what the victims' families can glean from media reports, the current delays stem not from inaction by the Justice Department but rather from Boeing contriving to "withdraw [from] an earlier agreement to plead guilty …." Dave Michaels & Emily Glazer, Boeing Is Pushing to Withdraw Guilty Plea Agreement, WALL ST. J., Mar. 24, 2025. Of course, Boeing possesses a constitutional right to force the Justice Department to prove its guilt at a trial—even though it has previously confessed to all of the elements of its deadly crime and even though, in other public settings, Boeing has professed sorrow for causing the deaths of hundreds of passengers and crew. But Boeing should not be free to extend the years-long proceedings any further than necessary. Boeing has yet to offer any real reason for additional delay. As of May 5, Boeing will have had a full five months to determine how it wants to proceed—after having already agreed to plead guilty in another proposed plea agreement.

As my motion concludes: "Today, 346 victims' families are left wondering whether they should plan to travel to Fort Worth to represent their lost loved ones at a trial to determine Boeing's guilt. They deserve to know whether Boeing really intends to go to trial—and they deserve that answer by May 5."

This issue now goes to Judge O'Connor for his decision.