United States v. Marshall
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10415
1st Cir.2014Background
- Marshall, a USPS letter carrier with 26 years on a Massachusetts route, discarded Town Criers to reduce workload.
- Supervisor instructed him to ensure deliverable Town Criers were delivered; Marshall reduced deliveries.
- Surveillance captured Marshall discarding Town Criers while sometimes delivering other items.
- Investigators later interviewed Marshall; he admitted discarding Town Criers and claimed no awareness of illegality.
- Trial proceeded as a bench trial before a magistrate judge; evidence included Town Criers, edit books, and video surveillance.
- Marshall was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1701 and sentenced; on appeal, the district court’s judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willfulness under § 1701 requires knowledge of illegality | Government argues willfulness can be shown by knowledge of effect, not necessarily unlawful knowledge | Marshall claims willfulness requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful at the time | Willfulness includes knowledge that acts will obstruct mail; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for willful obstruction | Evidence shows Marshall knowingly discarded deliverable mail to hinder delivery | Marshall asserts possible intent to deliver some items and supervisor tolerance | Sufficient evidence shows knowing and willful obstruction beyond reasonable doubt |
| Due process and scheduling/order issues | Marshall argues lack of scheduling order and delays harmed his defense | Magistrate discretionary; delays were justified and not prejudicial | No due process violation; continuances not prejudicial under standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. United States, 74 U.S. 482 (1868) (established the knowledge-and-intent approach to willfulness)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct will have its prohibited effect)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness carve-outs for highly technical statutes; ignorance of law not a defense)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for instructional error, including omitted elements)
- United States v. Johnson, 620 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1980) (willfulness requiring some awareness of legality beyond mere inadvertence)
- United States v. Wooden, 61 F.3d 3 (2d Cir. 1995) (willfulness greater than inadvertence or negligence for § 1701)
- United States v. McFarland, 445 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)