Case o' The Week: Ninth (Sai)Pans specific intent requirement. - Ye and Mens Rea for Passport offense
It's a Winn-Win situation . . . (for the government).
United States v. Ye, 2015 WL
4153634 (9th Cir. July 10, 2013), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge Friedland, joined by Judges
Clifton and N.R. Smith.
Facts: Ye, a Chinese citizen, overstayed her visa in Saipan
and gave birth a child.
Id. The
child’s place of birth made her a U.S. Citizen entitled to a U.S. passport. Id. Ye and her husband could have obtained
a U.S. passport for the child if they both applied in person, or if one parent
signed a notarized authorization statement. Id.
This notarized statement, however, would have caused (unspecified) problems for
the father of the child in China -- so the father’s brother traveled to Saipan, posed as the father, and executed the
child’s passport application. Id.
Both the brother (the child’s uncle) and Ye, the mother, were charged with
conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1542, providing false information in a
passport application. Id. Ye was
convicted after trial.
Hon. Judges Michelle Friedland and N.R. Smith |
Issue(s): “[Ye] argues that the district court’s jury
instructions erroneously failed to condition her convictions on a finding that
she intended to violate the passport laws.” Id.
at *1.
Held: “We
hold that the crimes for which Ye [were] convicted are not specific intent
crimes, so her challenges to the jury instructions fail.” Id. at *1. “We now join our sister circuits and hold that,
consistent with [the Supreme Court’s decision in] Browder, a conviction under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 does not require specific
intent.” Id. at *3.
Of Note: “But wait,” you ask: “in ’78 didn’t the Ninth hold that
a district court ‘correctly instructed the jury’ that ‘an act is done willfully
if done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something
the law forbids’ – under the same
paragraph of this statute?”
You remembered correctly. Id. at *3, citing Winn.
However,
Judge Friedland distinguishes Winn
because that was a “sufficiency of the evidence” case, “so its approval of the ‘willfully’
jury instruction is best understood as stating that the instruction had not
improperly reduced the government’s burden of proof.” Id. at *3. That’s a pretty close reading of precedent to avoid the Miller v. Gammie bar on flipping a prior
panel (though the Ninth admittedly gets a little boost from Justice Sotomayor,
who had as a judge made the same fine distinction). Id. at *3 & n.2. Another unfortunate salvo in the attack on our
beloved and beleaguered federal mens rea
requirements.
How to Use:
It’s an old (and fair) gambit to intentionally add small errors to a
declaration, ask a witness to interlineate and correct them when they object,
and then later argue that the witness must have read the document carefully before
signing because errors were caught and fixed. Here, the government used that
trick: DHS agents intentionally inserted errors in interview read-backs to Ms.
Ye, to trigger corrections and later prove the accuracy of the translators. Id. at *5. That strategy helped the
government fend off a Crawford attack
on the translators in Ye, and it was
reported without criticism by Judge Friedland. Sauce for the goose, sauce for
the gander: point to this passage when a D.J. gives you grief for your investigator’s
use of that technique.
For Further
Reading: Many people in prison “really don’t need to be there.” A
quote from Justices Kennedy and Breyer? Well, yes, probably, but this week the insight
is from House Speaker John Boehner. See article here.
Last week Mr. Boehner endorsed the SAFE Justice
Act, welcome legislation that narrows the use of mand mins, encourages
alternative sentences, and has a number of other reforms.
Meanwhile, Senate
Whip Cornyn (R-Texas) suggested that a bi-partisan sentencing overhaul deal may
be announced as soon as next week. Seearticle here.
Throw in the historic first Presidential visit to a
federal prison, NYT article here,
and maybe this will be the long overdue Summer of
Change?
Image of the Honorable Judge
Michelle Friedland from http://www.trbimg.com/img-5456e441/turbine/la-apphoto-bonds-steroids-appeal-baseball-jpg-20141102
Steven Kalar, Federal Public
Defender Northern District of California. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
Labels: 18 USC 1542, Friedland, Jury Instructions, Knowingly, Mens Rea, SAFE Act, Specific Intent, Willfulness
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home