1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

ANNA WRIGHT

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

State Bar No.: 029708 

405 West Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300 

E-mail: anna.wright@usdoj.gov nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendants.

CR-18-00223-RCC (DTF) 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 

TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM 

ARGUING JURY NULLIFICATION 

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, files its 

motion in limine to preclude the defendant from arguing “humanitarian aid is never a 

crime” as there is no legal basis for this defense and is, in essence, an argument for jury 

nullification. 

No More Deaths, an organization in which the defendant holds a leadership role, 

has for almost a decade argued that “humanitarian aid is never a crime.”1 See United States 

v. Millis, 621 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2010). While the Ninth Circuit has not directly 

addressed the argument that “humanitarian aid is never a crime,” it has addressed the 

defense’s ability to argue for jury nullification. Here, any argument by the defense that 

“humanitarian aid is never a crime” is legally incorrect and an invitation for the jury to 

 

1 See also https://azresist.org/event/humanitarian-aid-is-never-a-crime-drop-thecharges/2019-01-10/ and http://forms.nomoredeaths.org/legal-defense-campaign/. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 216 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

nullify the law. The Sixth Amendment right to present a defense does not include the right 

to ask for jury nullification. United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir 1991); 

see also United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1202-06 (9th Cir. 2005) (en 

banc) (rejecting request to instruct the grand jury on nullification). It is well-settled that “it 

is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to 

the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.” Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 

102 (1895). If the defense were allowed to argue “humanitarian aid is never a crime,” this 

Court would allow the “anarchy” referenced in Powell by allowing the jury to “ignore the 

requirements of the law.” Powell, 955 F.2d at 1213. 

Here, any attempt by the defense to argue or present any defense based on a theory 

of “humanitarian aid is never a crime” is tantamount to arguing for jury nullification. As 

noted, any argument for jury nullification is improper under Ninth Circuit and United 

States Supreme Court precedent, and therefore, the United States’ motion must be granted.

 Respectfully submitted this 21st day of May 2019. 

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney 

 District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA WRIGHT &

 NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 21st day of May 2019, to: 

All ECF participants 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 216 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 2