United States v. Svoboda
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2106
6th Cir.2011Background
- Svoboda produced a fake driver’s license with a Homeland Security seal when stopped by police in March 2009.
- He was charged with 18 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) (fraudulently made/forged seal) and 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6) (possession of an identification document produced without lawful authority).
- Svoboda sought a jury instruction asserting a good-faith defense based on his belief the act was lawful; the district court denied the instruction as a matter of law.
- Evidence showed Svoboda had no employment with DHS, forged the license himself, and relied on Sovereign Citizens teachings that government authority was invalid.
- The district court instructed the jury on “knowingly” without a general good-faith defense; Svoboda was convicted on both counts and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment plus supervised release.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding ignorance of the law is not a defense and Svoboda’s good-faith belief did not rebut elements of the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a good-faith-belief defense available here? | Svoboda argues for a good-faith-defense jury instruction. | Svoboda contends the defense should apply to negate elements. | No; not available as a matter of law. |
| Does ‘knowingly’ require knowledge of the law for § 506(a)(2) and § 1028(a)(6)? | N/A | Argues knowledge of law is not required; plain meaning supports this. | Knowingly applies to conduct and the objects, not necessarily to knowledge of the law. |
| Does Cheek v. United States bar Svoboda’s good-faith argument? | Svoboda relies on Cheek to negate willfulness. | Cheek does not permit a good-faith belief about the law as a defense here. | Cheek precludes this type of good-faith belief as a defense to these crimes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (knowingly applied to all elements of a crime per mens rea rule)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (knowingly applied to elements of sexual content statute)
- United States v. Ali, 557 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2009) (ignorance of the law is no excuse; applies to willfulness concepts)
- United States v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1999) (willfulness and knowledge principles in criminal statutes)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1991) (good-faith belief about the validity of tax laws not a defense to willfulness)
- United States v. Pensyl, 387 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2004) (the meaning of willfulness and knowledge discussions in Sixth Circuit)