United States v. Jeffrey Reichert
747 F.3d 445
6th Cir.2014Background
- Reichert was charged and convicted under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)(A) for trafficking in circumvention technology (mod chips) designed to bypass technological measures controlling access to copyrighted works.
- Trial featured expert testimony describing how modification chips are installed and their primary purpose to enable piracy, along with Reichert’s online postings and a prospective defense witness’s proposed testimony that was excluded.
- District court instructed willfulness as requiring knowledge of illegality; it then gave a deliberate-ignorance instruction linking awareness of high probability of illegality to a knowing violation.
- An undercover ICE operation led to Reichert selling a modified Nintendo Wii; residence and forum material, editing, and sales records were seized.
- Belcik testified as Reichert’s defense witness but was limited by the court from testifying about Reichert’s belief that modification was legal, a ruling Reichert challenged as a violation of the right to present a defense.
- Reichert received a two-level upward adjustment for “special skills” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, but the district court varied downward by two levels, imposing a sentence of 12 months and 1 day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deliberate ignorance instruction properly stated the DMCA willfulness standard | Reichert argues the instruction fails to require deliberate action to know illegality | The instruction tracked Sixth Circuit pattern and did not undermine willfulness | No reversible error; instructions, viewed as a whole, properly stated willfulness |
| Whether exclusion of Belcik’s testimony violated Reichert’s right to present a defense | Belcik’s testimony would show Reichert believed his conduct was legal | Exclusion was marginally relevant and did not impair a weighty defense interest | No constitutional injury; exclusion did not create reasonable doubt in light of record |
| Whether the § 3B1.3 special skills enhancement was proper | Reichert contends his skills were not ‘special’ | Self-taught, sophisticated hardware modification skills qualify as special | Special skills enhancement affirmed; Reichert’s skills were sufficiently sophisticated |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. United States, 628 F.3d 827 (6th Cir.2011) (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful)
- United States v. Ross, 502 F.3d 521 (6th Cir.2007) (charge must be considered as a whole; no single provision viewed in isolation)
- United States v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir.2009) (jury instructions must be considered as a whole; no reversible error if correct overall)
- United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320 (6th Cir.2000) (self-taught skills can be ‘special’ if sufficiently sophisticated)
- United States v. Mitchell, 681 F.3d 867 (6th Cir.2012) (pattern instruction deemed accurate)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir.2004) (interoperability and DMCA exemptions context for anti-circumvention)