Doli Syarief Pulungan v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13906
7th Cir.2013Background
- Pulungan spent 23 months in prison for attempting to export defense articles without a license under 22 U.S.C. §2778.
- Some of his imprisonment occurred before his trial, which was later reversed for lack of proof he knew a license was required.
- After the reversal, Pulungan sought a certificate of innocence under 28 U.S.C. §2513, allowing a civil claim under §1495.
- The district court granted the certificate of innocence, citing the appellate decision as showing innocence.
- A central issue was whether the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T riflescope is a defense article, affecting knowledge and license requirements.
- The court held the defense article classification is a factual question for the jury, not a categorical legal conclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the riflescope a defense article as a matter of law or fact? | Pulungan contends scope classification is a factual issue for the jury. | Government argues classification can be decided as a defense article under regulation. | Classification is a question of fact for the jury. |
| Was there sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Pulungan knew it was a defense article or that licenses were required? | Pulungan believed he could avoid licensing due to reliance on embargo status. | Evidence shows possible knowledge and intent to avoid licensure. | No reasonable jury could find knowledge or license necessity beyond doubt. |
| Does an acquittal establish innocence under §2513(a)(2)’s ‘innocence’ requirement? | Pulungan should be treated as innocent because acquittal proves lack of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Acquittal does not necessarily equate to actual innocence; it reflects failure of proof. | Acquittal does not equate to innocence; actual innocence must be shown. |
| Did Betts v. United States incorrectly support treating acquittal as innocence for §2513 purposes? | District court wrongly relied on Betts to treat acquittal as innocence. | Betts addressed different issues (self-prosecution) and does not certify innocence. | Betts does not establish innocence; acquittal is not the same as innocence. |
| What should govern on remand regarding the defense article issue and innocence proof? | Proceed with jury evaluation of defense article status; allow evidence and testimony. | Limit evidence unless defense article status is resolved; framing of innocence remains. | Remand to determine whether the scope is a defense article and to assess innocence accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rigsbee v. United States, 204 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1953) (acquittal vs. innocence distinction for §2513 purposes)
- Betts v. United States, 10 F.3d 1278 (7th Cir. 1993) (acquittal does not automatically prove innocence; self-prosecution context)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) (adverse inference considerations in civil proceedings)