Case o' The Week: Doe, a Drear, a New-Rule Drear: Doe and Proof of Knowledge of Real ID for Agg Identity Theft
“Keepin’ it real” just got easier, in the Ninth (unfortunately).
United
States v. John Doe, 2016 WL 6958647 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2016), decision
available here.
Players: Decision by visiting Sr. District Judge Garbis, D.
Maryland, joined by Judges Silverman and Nguyen.
Facts: John Doe refused to give his name, through the
appeal. Id. at *1 & n.1. The
victim of this ID case was born in ’63 and later obtained a social security
card. Id. Before ’87, the victim’s
birth certificate and social security card was sold; someone used these docs to
obtain replacements. Id. at *1. The
victim’s identification was then used for 27 years without authorization. Id. Evidence showed Doe used the
victim’s identity in 2002 to get a driver’s license. That license was
periodically renewed until 2014 when Doe was arrested. Id. Doe was charged with agg ID theft, and false statements in
immigration docs. Id. at *2. He was
convicted after trial. Id.
Issue(s): “Doe contends that the Government failed to prove an
element of
the offense—specifically that he knew that the false identity he used belonged
to a real person.” Id. at *1. “Doe
acknowledges that the Government proved that [the victim] was a real person. .
. . Doe contends however, that, without direct proof of his knowledge (such as
proof that he knew [victim] or had any connection to the sale of [the victim’s]
birth certificate and identifying information), the evidence was insufficient to
establish his knowledge that V was a real person.” Id. at *3 (footnote omitted). “[T]he issue here presented is
whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish Doe’s knowledge
that the identity of [victim] was that of a real person.” Id. at *3. “This case presents the question, not previously
addressed by this Court, of whether evidence of a defendant’s repeated
submission of false identifying information as part of successful applications
to a government agency is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that the
defendant knew that the information belonged to a real person.” Id. at *1.
Held: “We hold that it
is and that Doe’s convictions were thus based upon sufficient evidence.” Id.
“This Court holds that the evidence
of Doe’s repeated successful use of V's identity in applications subject to scrutiny
was sufficient to permit the jury to find that he knew that V was a real
person.” Id. at *4.
Of Note: This is a disappointing holding, and the jury
instruction – quoted verbatim in the opinion – is likely to be
imported in agg ID theft cases. Id.
at *4. The theory appears to be a presumption of government competence: a
defendant theoretically knows that the government would jump on the use of a
fake social security number or birth date in an application for government
docs. Thus, using an ID to apply for government docs is circumstantial evidence
that the defendant knew the ID was real. Id.
at *4 (collecting cases). Unfortunately, this new Ninth rule is also consistent
with decisions from the First, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits. Id.
How to Use:
It bears emphasis that the Doe rule
is just a “sufficiency” holding: the case doesn’t hold that applications for
government docs are per se evidence
that the defendant knew the identity belonged to a real person. To the
contrary, this is mere circumstantial evidence that is subject to attack. In
this case (and in others cited in Doe),
the defendant was a foreign national who argued he couldn’t reasonably be
pegged with knowledge of how the U.S. government’s identification-certification
procedures worked. Id. at *4. While
that argument didn’t win the sufficiency-day for Doe, “[h]is not being a
citizen, although a resident, of the United States is a fact that the jury could have considered relevant . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Doe’s inadvertent holding is that the
unique history of the defendant, in the context of this circumstantial
evidence, is relevant to the subjective question of whether this defendant knew
the ID belonged to a real person.
For Further
Reading: Doe
involved mand-mins and immigration charges –subjects much on our mind, as
(future) A.G. Sessions warms up in the batter’s box. For a preview of the
Senator’s views, see news release here.
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Agg ID Theft, Circumstantial Evidence, Identity Theft, Section 1028A
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home