United States v. Julius Chow Lieh Liu
731 F.3d 982
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Liu appeals convictions for criminal copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit labels and a related sentence.
- Super DVD replicated CDs/DVDs for clients; liability hinges on whether Liu acted willfully and knowingly.
- District court jury instructions stated willfulness/knowingly without requiring knowledge of unlawfulness, which the panel later finds improper.
- Evidence showed Super DVD possessed and produced infringing CDs/DVDs with Liu’s initials; Liu admitted involvement in at least one order (Crouching Tiger) for which rights were lacking.
- Second superseding indictment added a motion-picture count (Crouching Tiger) not clearly anticipated in the original indictment; the court later remanded with count two potentially time-barred and to be dismissed; ineffective-assistance claim linked to statute-of-limitations defense.
- The court vacates Liu’s convictions/sentence on counts 1-3 (copyright) and count 4 (counterfeit labels) and remands to district court for removal/retrial consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willfulness requires knowledge of illegality | Liu argues willfulness requires knowledge of illegality. | Liu contends district court erred by defining willfulness without requiring knowledge of unlawfulness. | Willfulness requires knowledge of illegality; error not harmless; convictions vacated. |
| Knowingly in trafficking in counterfeit labels means knowledge labels are counterfeit | Liu contends knowledge could be that he trafficked, not that labels were counterfeit. | Liu argues government need not prove knowledge labels were counterfeit. | Knowingly means knowledge that labels are counterfeit; error not harmless; count four vacated. |
| Statute-of-limitations defense for count two | Liu claims no notice of motion-picture infringement until second superseding indictment. | Government argues tolling; addition did not broaden; insufficiency of notice. | Count two time-barred; trial counsel ineffective; count two dismissed on remand. |
| Ineffective assistance as to failure to raise limitations defense | Counsel failed to raise a five-year limitations defense. | Record insufficient to review on direct appeal unless substantial. | Ineffective assistance shown; remand for dismissal of count two; other issues preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (willfulness requires knowledge of illegality in criminal context)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willful act requires knowledge of a known legal duty)
- Turman v. United States, 122 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1997) (knowledge that conduct was unlawful required in some contexts; analogizing to other offenses)
- Stein v. United States, 37 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994) (warning against broad, general definitions of knowingly in criminal settings)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013) (plain-error standard for reviewing trial court legal questions)