United States v. Michael Walli
785 F.3d 1080
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Y-12 National Security Complex intrusion by three protesters in Oak Ridge, TN; group damaged government property (~$8,000) during protest at HEUMF where highly enriched uranium is stored.
- Defendants were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (injury to government property) and 18 U.S.C. § 2155(a) (Sabotage Act) after the trespass and protest; trespass count later dropped.
- District court sentenced Walli and Boertje-Obed to 62 months and Rice to 35 months on each count, to run concurrently; convictions on § 2155(a) and § 1361 upheld on appeal.
- Court holds that the § 2155(a) convictions must be evaluated for “intent to interfere with the national defense” and applies Gorin v. United States to define the national defense.
- Court concludes the government failed to prove that defendants acted with intent to interfere with the national defense; § 2155(a) convictions reversed; § 1361 convictions affirmed; remand for acquittal on § 2155(a) and resentencing on § 1361.
- Dissenting opinion notes that a rational jury could convict under the first theory of intent and would affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports intent to interfere with the national defense under § 2155(a). | Walli/Boertje-Obed argued actions were intended to obstruct the national defense. | Defendants contended no intent to interfere; actions were protest-related. | No rational jury could find intent; Sabotage Act convictions reversed. |
| What constitutes interference with the national defense under § 2155(a)? | Government argued practical certainty of disruption suffices. | Defendants argued need for actual intent to interfere. | Interference requires purposeful or practically certain impairment of national defense; not shown here. |
| Whether admission of prior § 1361 convictions for impeachment was proper. | N/A | Prosecutor used prior convictions for impeachment. | No abuse of discretion; limiting instructions minimized prejudice. |
| Whether prosecutorial references to 9/11 were misconduct. | N/A | N/A | No prosecutorial misconduct found. |
| Whether sentences on § 1361 counts should be vacated given remand on § 2155(a). | Interdependent sentencing requires continued application. | N/A | Vacate § 1361 sentences; remand for acquittal on § 2155(a) counts and resentencing on § 1361. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1931) (defined national defense for related context)
- United States v. Platte, 401 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir.2005) (international missile facility context; practical certainty standard applied)
- United States v. Rabat, 797 F.2d 580 (8th Cir.1986) (Minuteman missile context; interference with national defense requires functional impact)
- United States v. Johnson, 24 M.J. 101 (Ct.Mil.App.1987) (injury to military systems as interference with national defense)
- United States v. Ortiz, 25 M.J. 570 (Air Force Ct.Mil.Rev.1987) (disabled safety system; national-defense impact via mission readiness)
- United States v. Ogden, 685 F.3d 600 (6th Cir.2012) (definition of knowledge under intent standards)