United States v. Michael Brown
2017 FED App. 0105P
6th Cir.2017Background
- In Aug–Sept 2012 anonymous extortion letters and flash drives claiming to contain encrypted, unreleased Mitt Romney tax returns were sent to PricewaterhouseCoopers and local Democratic and Republican party offices, demanding $1 million in Bitcoin; posts appeared on Pastebin signed “Dr. Evil.”
- PricewaterhouseCoopers’ security found no network breach; Secret Service investigation traced Pastebin/TOR usage and flash-drive artifacts (including text strings like “KnightMB” and file Romney1040-Collection.7z) to Michael Brown’s online aliases and home IP activity.
- Forensic examination of Brown’s computer showed the encrypted Romney file, prior bookmarks to the Bitcoin addresses, use of TOR to access the same German IP as a Pastebin post, and stored images/texts used in the extortion posts; neighbors corroborated Brown printed envelopes used in mailings.
- Brown denied involvement, claiming others accessed his computer; he identified multiple possible visitors. A grand jury indicted him; a jury convicted on 12 counts (six wire fraud, six extortion).
- District court sentenced Brown to 48 months’ imprisonment and ordered $201,836 restitution. Brown appealed, arguing (1) the search warrant lacked probable cause and Franks errors, (2) juror questioning prejudiced him, and (3) the court erred by applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement to his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant affidavit contained false statements or omissions requiring a Franks hearing and suppression | Affidavit misstated dates of prior investigation/polygraph, omitted that Brown passed the polygraph, and omitted exculpatory context (TOR commonality, multiple computer users, cats not at his house), so no probable cause | Even removing alleged falsities/omissions, the affidavit and totality of the evidence (text strings linking to KnightMB, TOR access to same IP, 7-Zip usage, bookmarks to Bitcoin addresses, forensic matches) established probable cause | No Franks hearing required; probable cause existed and suppression not warranted |
| Whether permitting juror-submitted questions without contemporaneous objection was reversible error | Allowing juror questions prejudiced Brown by shifting jury role and introducing risk of improper inquiry | Court followed safeguards (early notice, written submission, screening, instructions) and complexity of digital evidence justified juror questions | No plain error; trial court acted within discretion and took appropriate precautions |
| Whether district court clearly erred in applying a §3C1.1 obstruction-of-justice enhancement for Brown’s statements to investigators | Brown’s statements (naming others with access) were false/misleading and obstructive | The statements were not proven to be false or to have significantly impeded investigation; the list emailed was responsive, partly prepared by wife, and did not retard investigation | Enhancement vacated: court erred to apply §3C1.1 because statements did not significantly obstruct the investigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant entitled to evidentiary hearing if affidavit contains intentionally or recklessly false statements material to probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Miller, 314 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2002) (probable cause standard for search warrants)
- United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (totality-of-circumstances review; no line-by-line scrutiny)
- United States v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2008) (Franks framework in Sixth Circuit)
- United States v. Collins, 226 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2000) (standards and safeguards for juror questions at trial)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error review standard)
- United States v. Carter, 510 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2007) (§3C1.1 requires that false statements significantly obstruct investigation to merit enhancement)
- United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504 (6th Cir. 1991) (enhancement requires showing that defendant’s conduct hurt or retarded the investigation)
- United States v. Bazazpour, 690 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for obstruction factual findings)