United States v. Jaensch
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25947
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jaensch was indicted for producing (Count 1) and transferring (Count 2) a false identification document under 18 U.S.C. § 1028.
- The ID identified Jaensch as a diplomat with language and features suggesting government issuance; the header read United States of America with a Great Seal background.
- Jaensch admitted using the ID with TSA to pass through airport security and to board flights during interviews.
- Diplomatic-affairs expert Holly Coffey testified the ID was not authentic and not issued by the State Department.
- Evidence showed the ID was manufactured by Maxsell Corporation and shipped to Jaensch; the purchase order listed his name and address.
- At a first trial, Count 2 resulted in a acquittal, but Count 1 resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial; at retrial the district court convicted Jaensch on Count 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory vagueness as applied | Jaensch argues § 1028(a)(1) is vague for ‘appears to be’ | Jaensch argues lack of notice to ordinary people | Not unconstitutionally vague as applied |
| Jury instruction on ‘appears to be’ | Govt. used reasonable person standard; burden not diminished | District court impermissibly lowered mens rea | Reasonable person standard proper and did not dilute mens rea |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Rule 29, first trial) | Evidence supported venue, production, and appearance of government issuance | Evidence insufficient for Count 1 | Evidence sufficient; motion properly denied |
| ‘Appear to be’ issued by US govt. (as to venue/evidence) | ID appeared government-issued; expert testimony did not negate appearance | ID did not appear government-issued | ID appeared to be government-issued; sufficient evidence |
| Indictment charging aiding and abetting | § 2(b) need not be separately charged | Indictment must charge aiding and abetting | No separate charging required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 364 F.3d 556 (4th Cir. 2004) (vagueness review and mens rea considerations)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1982) (mens rea reduces vagueness concerns)
- Hoffman Estates v. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (scintilla of mens rea may mitigate vagueness)
- Klecker, 348 F.3d 69 (4th Cir. 2003) (intent requirement defeats vagueness challenge)
- Gilliam, 975 F.2d 1050 (4th Cir. 1992) (notice required for mens rea in some crimes)
- Fuller, 531 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (documents can appear to be issued by the United States even if nonexistent)
- Fera, 616 F.2d 590 (1st Cir. 1980) (evidence sufficiency and appearance considerations)
- Ashley, 606 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2010) (aiding and abetting need not be charged separately)
- Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2003) (acts by others can undercut insulation from liability)
- Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) (venue questions tied to nature of the crime)