United States v. Pheerayuth Burden
934 F.3d 675
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- Pheerayuth Burden (Thai national, U.S. resident) ran Wing‑On LLC, exporting goods from the U.S. to Thailand; he and the company shipped gun parts (including five AR‑style magazines and an M203 mount) without State Department licenses.
- Co‑defendant Kitibordee Yindeear‑Rom (Thai national) pleaded guilty and was incarcerated; the government took his videotaped deposition under Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 before trial.
- The government released and deported Yindeear‑Rom after his sentence reduction and made no documented pre‑deportation efforts (e.g., subpoena, travel or visa arrangements, retaining passport) to secure his presence at trial. Post‑deportation, the government sought to subpoena him and offered travel assistance.
- At a warehouse interview (no Miranda warnings, no interpreter), Burden admitted shipping and falsifying customs forms; his defense emphasized he thought parts were for Airsoft/BB toys or that he was evading Thai customs law.
- A jury convicted on counts of AECA conspiracy, unlawful exportation under the AECA, and money‑laundering conspiracy; on appeal the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded based on Confrontation Clause error, affirmed denial of Miranda suppression, and offered guidance on the willfulness jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Burden/Wing‑On) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior videotaped deposition (Confrontation Clause/unavailability) | Yindeear‑Rom was unavailable; deposition admissible because government later tried to secure him | Government deported the witness without reasonable pre‑deportation efforts; therefore he was not 'unavailable' | Reversed: witness was not shown unavailable because government made no reasonable efforts before deportation; deposition admission violated Confrontation Clause |
| Definition of "willfully" under AECA (mens rea) | Need only prove defendant knew conduct was unlawful; not necessary to know specific statute/regulations | Defendants argued must know specific licensing requirement or that items were on the Munitions List | Affirmed in part: government need not prove knowledge of the specific law or Munitions List, but jury instruction should tie willfulness to the charged actus reus (unlicensed export from U.S.) |
| Admission of Burden's non‑Mirandized statements (custody inquiry) | Statements admissible; interview non‑custodial | Burden argued limited English made the interview effectively custodial and Miranda warnings were required | Affirmed: objective custody test—reasonable officer would not have thought Burden’s imperfect English made a reasonable person feel detained; statements admissible |
| Harmlessness and remedy | Error not harmless; convictions should be vacated and remanded for new trial | Same | Vacated convictions and remanded for a new trial due to Confrontation Clause error |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements admissible only if witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (prosecution must make good‑faith, reasonable efforts to procure witness; unavailability requirement)
- United States v. Lynch, 499 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (government must use vigorous efforts to procure a live witness when prior testimony is offered)
- United States v. Mann, 590 F.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1978) (government duty includes reasonable steps to prevent present witness from becoming absent)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful; specificity depends on statute)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (in highly technical tax context, willfulness can be defeated by a good‑faith belief about tax obligations)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (willfulness may require awareness of one’s own distinct legal duty in narrowly defined statutes)
- United States v. Tirado‑Tirado, 563 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2009) (deportation without pre‑departure arrangements can render a witness not "unavailable")
- United States v. Yida, 498 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2007) (government’s role in witness deportation increases burden to show reasonable efforts to procure witness)