Attorneys for Convicted Professor File Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and New Trial
The attorneys for former University of Tennessee Professor J. Reece Roth, who was recently convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and wire fraud, have filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial under Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Such motions are routinely filed by defendants who have been convicted in order to set up the legal issues for appeal, but are rarely granted.
Summary of Arguments for Judgment of Acquittal
Roth's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal is based on two grounds. First, defense counsel claims that the data generated by the contracts that Roth and his graduate students were working on was neither a “defense article” or “technical data” relating to a “defense article” as those terms are defined in Category VIII of the United States Munitions List (USML). Second, defense counsel contends that the evidence presented in this case was not sufficient to convict Roth for willfully violating the AECA.
The crux of the defense argument is that the certifications made by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) regarding the classification of the data and other items that Roth was working on and exported to China were incorrect. For example, the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal notes that the DDTC staff member that made the certifications initially determined that "none of the items which were subject to the Indictment were included on the USML and thus were not defense articles or technical data relating thereto." Specifically, counsel stated that the defense articles and technical data at issue in this case were not "directly related to an aircraft specifically designed, modified, or equipped for military purposes," the test for determining whether an item is subject to the jurisdiction of the ITAR or not.
Defense counsel noted that it "is fair to say there was less than unanimity in the proof regarding the particular defense article that the data and [defense article] fell within, although the jury was charged and returned a verdict premised solely on Category VIII."
In addition, Roth's counsel contends that the provision in the AECA that precludes judicial review of the "designation of items as defense articles or services" (22 USC 2278) does not exempt certifications from the State Department that particular articles or technical data are within USML Category VIII. In addition to discussing a few cases where the courts appeared to exercise judicial review of State Department certifications, counsel also noted that a "construction of section 2778(h) that would preclude judicial review of the adequacy of the evidence that an item constitutes a defense article would violate the Constitutional due process requirement that criminal statutes provide 'fair warning.'"
Finally, Roth's attorneys stated that the evidence presented in this case was insufficient to establish that Professor Roth acted willfully and with specific intent, the requirement for a conviction under the AECA and wire fraud statutes. For example, it was noted that in addition to there being considerable uncertainty as to whether the defense articles and technical data were defense articles or not, Roth's "efforts to comply with his inaccurate understanding of this complex regulatory scheme demonstrate a lack of understanding of the law that persisted throughout the time period in question."
Summary of Arguments for New Trial
In arguing for a new trial, Roth's counsel claimed that a new trial should be granted because the trial judge did not include in the jury instructions a proposed instruction on ignorance of the law and the file to include such an instruction "resulted in prejudice to the Defendant." The proposed jury instruction read as follows:
In order for the government to show that Defendant violated the Arms Export Control Act, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the Arms Export Control Act. Defendant acted knowingly and willfully if he knew he was unlawfully exporting technical data on the United States Munitions List. An innocent or negligent mistake by the Defendant is insufficient to support a finding of a knowing and willful export. So if Defendant was ignorant of the requirements of the Arms Export Control Act or was aware of the requirements of the Act but believed that he was complying with those requirements, he did not act knowingly or willfully, and you must find him not guilty.Citing several cases as precedent, defense counsel argued that because ignorance of the law is a defense to the AECA, the issue should have been put before the jury and failure to do so is grounds for a new trial.
Needless to say, the U.S. Government will present a different version of the law in their responses to Roth's motions. Assuming that these motions are not granted and the convictions are appealed by Professor Roth, the appellate decisions could lead to important legal precedent and clarification on these issues for companies and academic institutions subject to export controls.
Editor's Note: Thanks to a loyal reader for providing copies of the motions filed by Roth's counsel.