United States v. Roth
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 85
6th Cir.2011Background
- Roth, a professor and Atmospheric Glow Technologies consultant, worked on a US Air Force plasma-actuator project to be used on military drones.
- Phase II planned testing on drones; data and reports were identified as export controlled; foreign nationals were restricted from access.
- Roth proposed involving two grad students, Bonds (American) and Dai (Chinese), with Dai initially shielded from export-controlled data; later Dai gained access to weekly reports.
- A Force Stand device used in labs collected data; Dai and another Iranian student, Nourgostar, had access to it.
- Roth traveled to China in May 2006 with Phase II data and a Boeing-proposal related document, raising export-control concerns; data reportedly not accessed on the trip, but paper copies were transported.
- Indictment charged Roth with conspiracy, multiple counts of exporting defense articles without a license, and wire fraud; jury convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Phase II data, Agency Proposal, and Force Stand defense articles? | Roth treated data as non-articles because not yet used on military aircraft. | Regulations extend to all stages; data and Force Stand are defense articles. | Yes; data and Force Stand are defense articles and services. |
| Was the willfulness instruction correct and was ignorance of the law a required separate defense? | Willfulness should require knowledge that items are on the Munitions List; ignorance is an affirmative defense. | Willfulness only requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful; ignorance not required as a separate defense. | Willfulness instruction proper; no separate ignorance-of-law instruction required. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that Roth willfully exported the Agency Proposal? | Roth may not have opened files and thus lacked knowledge of contents. | Overall project context and discussions about export-controlled information support willfulness. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported willful export. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326 (7th Cir. 2009) (regulations extend export controls to all stages of defense projects)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court 1998) (willfulness requires knowledge conduct is unlawful; supports broad application)
- United States v. Murphy, 852 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988) (willfulness may be satisfied by knowledge of legal duty, not necessarily listing)
- United States v. Hsu, 364 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2004) (discusses knowledge of illegality without needing Munitions List specifics)
- United States v. Tsai, 954 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1992) (jury can convict if knows export is illegal without listing awareness)
- United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1990) (jury instructed that license requirements apply; Munitions List not required to be cited)
- United States v. Gregg, 829 F.2d 1430 (8th Cir. 1987) (diverges on knowledge of Munitions List specifics for willfulness)
- United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2006) (discusses where ignorance of the law may be a defense; tax-like contexts)