United States v. Wyatt
964 F.3d 947
| 10th Cir. | 2020Background
- Wyatt owned and operated Gunsmoke, which surrendered its federal firearms license (FFL) after ATF inspections; he was later indicted on tax crimes and on counts charging willful dealing in firearms without an FFL and two §371 conspiracy counts.
- At trial the district court instructed the jury that the three substantive unlicensed-dealer counts required willfulness, but did not give a willfulness instruction on the two §371 conspiracy counts; the jury was convicted on the two conspiracy counts (and deadlocked on the substantive counts, which were dismissed without prejudice).
- The Government concedes the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that conspiracy to violate a federal statute requires at least the mens rea of the underlying substantive offense (i.e., willfulness) and agrees vacatur of the conspiracy convictions is required.
- Relevant trial facts supporting willfulness: after Gunsmoke’s FFL ended, Wyatt continued dealing by using others’ FFLs (Triggers/Meidel, Gunner’s Den/Rutan, and a Wisconsin dealer), submitted a falsified lease to ATF to effect a change of address, recorded Gunsmoke inventory in another licensee’s A&D book, altered sales entries to hide firearm sales, directed customers to co‑licensees to complete transfers, and engaged in deceptive statements to customers and contractors; undercover ATF agents purchased guns from Gunsmoke in 2015.
- Wyatt and co‑defendants testified they believed their conduct lawful and relied on ATF guidance; the Tenth Circuit held a properly instructed jury could nevertheless disbelieve that testimony and find willfulness from the concealment and circumstantial evidence.
- The panel VACATED the two conspiracy convictions for the instructional error but REMANDED for further proceedings, concluding there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find Wyatt and co‑conspirators acted willfully.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by failing to instruct that willfulness is an element of conspiracy under §371 to violate 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(1)(A)? | Government: yes; conspiracy requires the mens rea of the underlying substantive offense (willfulness). | Wyatt: (disagreed re: consequence?) — not contested on appeal; gov conceded error. | Court: Error; convictions vacated for instructional error. |
| Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support a jury finding of willfulness (so dismissal with prejudice is required)? | Government: sufficient circumstantial evidence (false lease, A&D manipulation, concealment, deceptive practices, continued business operations) supports willfulness; remand/new trial appropriate. | Wyatt: testimony and ATF guidance showed lack of knowledge of illegality; argues insufficiency so double jeopardy bars retrial. | Court: Evidence sufficient that a reasonable, properly instructed jury could find willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (willfulness requirement for violating §922(a)(1)(A) addressed)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975) (conspiracy mens rea must include at least the mens rea of the substantive offense)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (sufficiency review uses correct elements of the offense even when jury received erroneous instructions)
- United States v. Burks, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy bars retrial when conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence)