United States v. Miller
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24052
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Favreau was convicted by a jury of international parental kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1204 and sentenced to time served plus one year of supervised release.
- Prior custody orders: 1999 Vermont divorce awarded Favreau custody; 2000 Massachusetts order granted Favreau temporary full custody and later limited Miller's visitation.
- Favreau took Robbie to Canada in May 2001, knowing Miller had rights; Canadian custody proceedings began in 2002 and Favreau obtained custody there in 2005.
- Vermont and Massachusetts orders formed the basis for Miller's rights; a 2002 Vermont order granted Miller full custody and Favreau was held in contempt with a bench warrant issued.
- Favreau appealed the Vermont order to the Vermont Supreme Court; the appeal was pending at the time of her federal trial in 2007.
- The Vermont Supreme Court later held in 2008 that the Vermont court should have deferred to Canadian proceedings, reversing part of the state judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pending Vermont appeal | Favreau contends the appeal's pendency is relevant to intent. | Favreau argues the appeal undermines Miller's rights and is probative of intent. | District court's exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Continuance pending decision | Favreau sought a continuance awaiting Vermont Supreme Court decision. | Favreau cannot show prejudice or arbitrariness. | District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on intent | Favreau argues the evidence fails to show intent to obstruct Miller's rights. | Favreau contends the intent could be inferred from known rights and travel to Canada. | Evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find intent to obstruct Wilmer's rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- SR Int'l Bus. Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Props., LLC, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (evidentiary relevance standard; broad discretion in admitting evidence)
- Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion review; manifest error standard)
- United States v. Kraeger, 711 F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1983) (good-faith misunderstanding of law does not negate intent)
- Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1985) (orders must be complied with pending appeal absent stay)
- McDonald v. Head Crim. Ct. Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1988) (compliance with orders; appellate stays)
- United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1989) (Rule 403 balancing; broad discretion to exclude cumulative or confusing evidence)
- United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003) (evidence sufficiency and standard of review)
- Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411 (1st Cir. 2009) (subsequent evidence of motive can be relevant to intent)
- Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) (very low standard for relevance)