Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/994/609/271470/
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 02:23:35
Document Index: 162281306

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2518', '§ 109', '§ 2510', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 54', '§ 176', '§ 174', '§ 1503', '§ 78', '§ 504', '§ 3', '§ 2232', '§ 2518', '§ 1113', '§ 1111', '§ 1112', '§ 1201', '§ 1201', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 176', '§ 174', '§ 176', '§ 2', '§ 1001', '§ 1001', '§ 1503', '§ 371', '§ 377', '§ 3553', '§ 472', '§ 2', '§ 5']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert P. Aguilar, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Robert P. Aguilar, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee, 994 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1993) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1993 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert P. Aguilar, Defendant-appellant.united State...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert P. Aguilar, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Robert P. Aguilar, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee, 994 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1993)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 994 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1993) Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1991. Decided May 12, 1993. As Amended Aug. 9, 1993. Rehearing En Banc OrderedSept. 2, 1993
The separate opinions of Judges Hug and O'Scannlain are filed contemporaneously with this order and opinion. The conviction for wiretap disclosure, count six of the indictment, is AFFIRMED for the reasons expressed in this opinion, as to which Judge O'Scannlain concurs in part. The conviction for obstruction of justice, count eight of the indictment, is REVERSED for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Hug, as to which Judge O'Scannlain concurs in part. The sentence of six months' imprisonment and fine of $1,000 under count six is VACATED for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge O'Scannlain, as to which Judge Hug concurs in part, and REMANDED for reconsideration in light of United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).OPINION
Knowledge of a fact, members of the jury, means that you're satisfied from the evidence that he knew it [.] Or knowledge of the existence of a particular circumstance may be satisfied by proof that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the existence of that circumstance [,] unless you find from the evidence that the defendant actually believed that the circumstance did not exist.
Aguilar argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had knowledge of a wiretap application. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must determine whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
Congress has set a limit upon the time during which a wiretap may remain secret. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8) (d) (1988). It has also provided for extensions of that time upon a showing of good cause. See id. We are not here confronted with a prosecution for disclosure of a wiretap after the government had already served notice of the wiretap upon the interceptee, which might raise more troubling questions of the nature posed by the dissent. In this case, although the specific wiretap of which Judge Aguilar had learned expired on May 20, 1987, the district court ordered its secrecy maintained through January, 1989. Moreover, other wiretaps were authorized in the interim; wiretaps for which Chapman was an interceptee were in place from September 11 to October 12, 1987, and from October 21, 1987, through May 8, 1988. Thus, at the time Aguilar warned Chapman of the surveillance, it was still lawfully secret.
The dissent reads the statute to require that a defendant must intend to impede the specific unexpired wiretap of which he has knowledge before he can violate the law. See post at 628, 629. This construction permits the disclosure of any expired wiretap authorization, regardless whether the wiretap is still secret and regardless whether the disclosure may impede ongoing undercover investigations. To interpret section 2232(c) to permit disclosure by third parties while the government has obtained judicial approval to maintain secrecy would defeat the purpose of section 2518(8) (d). It is unlikely Congress intended to permit judicially-authorized surveillance efforts to be frustrated by such a narrow reading of the statute. As such a reading is incompatible with the statutory language, we reject it.
Aguilar also argues that section 2232(c), by punishing him for speaking about the wiretap, violates his First Amendment right to free speech. We review constitutional challenges to statutes de novo. United States v. Scampini, 911 F.2d 350, 351 (9th Cir. 1990).
Aguilar does not dispute that if he had a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the wiretap application, he had no First Amendment right to disclose the application. See Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509 n. 3, 100 S. Ct. 763, 765 n. 3, 62 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1980) (per curiam). Rather, he argues that section 2232(c) violates his First Amendment rights because he had no such duty. He contends, therefore, that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that " 'knowledge [for] the purposes of 2232(c) must come from confidential information, information derived from the judge [']s employment." Failure to give this instruction, he argues, deprived him "of the right to have the factual dispute about whether the disclosure involved a breach of duty resolved by the jury." Aguilar maintains that had the jury been given the opportunity to consider this question, it would have found that he had no duty. The government could not have demonstrated the confidentiality of the information Aguilar received from Judge Peckham because it could not "articulate any conceivable relationship between the disclosure by Judge Peckham and Judge Aguilar's official duties."
In Snepp the Supreme Court considered whether a former CIA agent had a First Amendment right to publish a book on CIA activities in South Vietnam, based on information learned during the course of his employment. The Court found that an agreement Snepp had signed with the CIA prohibited him from publishing without CIA approval. But the Court noted that "apart from the plain language of the agreement, the nature of Snepp's duties and his conceded access to confidential sources and materials could establish a trust relationship." 444 U.S. at 511 n. 6, 100 S. Ct. at 766 n. 6. The same can be said of federal judges. Every day, we discuss confidential court business with our colleagues and our staff. It is well understood we are not free to discuss these matters with the attorneys that appear before us, with our families, or with our friends outside the court. Although it is difficult to find authorities discussing the existence of a duty on the part of federal judges to guard the confidentiality of their communications with their colleagues, that is undoubtedly because "its existence and validity has been so universally recognized. Its source is rooted in history and gains added force from the constitutional separation of powers of the three departments of government." Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (MacKinnon, J., dissenting) (discussing existence of a privilege protecting disclosure of communications among judges).
Several years ago, a special federal appeals panel held that communications among judges "relating to official judicial business" are protected by a qualified privilege. See In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Committee of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, 783 F.2d 1488, 1520 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 904, 106 S. Ct. 3273, 91 L. Ed. 2d 563 (1986). The court did not restrict the privilege to information a judge discloses to his staff or colleagues during the course of his official duties. It held that the privilege protected material "relating to official judicial business." We see no reason to circumscribe the corresponding official duty of confidentiality more narrowly.
Aguilar argues that the court's definition of knowledge as the awareness of a "high probability" of the existence of a fact was improper. He contends that this definition describes an objective state of mind akin to "negligence." The definition, he suggests, conflicts with the "basic and widely understood" principle that knowledge is a subjective state of mind requiring "actual awareness" of a fact. It is this "settled interpretation" of knowledge that Congress must have had in mind when it drafted section 2232(c), according to Aguilar. The definition used by the trial court, which Aguilar refers to alternatively as a "diluted" or "objective" standard of knowledge, is only appropriate when there is evidence that a defendant has consciously avoided learning an incriminating fact. If there is no such evidence, an instruction employing this definition creates the risk that the jury will convict the defendant for what he should have known, he argues. See United States v. Garzon, 688 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. Murrieta-Bejarano, 552 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1977). Because there was no evidence of "deliberate indifference" in this case, Aguilar maintains the government was required to prove that he possessed "actual knowledge." Whether a jury instruction misstates an element of an offense is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 525 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878, 111 S. Ct. 210, 112 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1990).
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-508, § 109, 100 Stat. 1858 (1986) ("the Act"), of which section 2232(c) is a part, is silent on the meaning of the statute's mens rea requirement. See 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (1988). Left without guidance from the statutory text, the trial judge turned to the legislative history and concluded that Congress had imported the Model Penal Code definition of "knowledge"6 into the Act. Although the legislative history is of little help in discerning Congress's intent,7 I conclude that the trial judge's definition was perfectly appropriate. The Model Penal Code view that one has knowledge of an attendant fact when one is "aware of a high probability of its existence" is as accurate a description of the subjective state of mind I call "knowledge" as any I can imagine.
Despite all this, Aguilar argues that the drafters of the Model Penal Code conceived of section 2.02(7) not as a definition of knowledge, but as an exception to the traditional requirement of "actual" knowledge applicable only when there is evidence that a defendant has remained deliberately ignorant of a fact. He suggests that courts have ratified this limitation. Nothing in the text of section 2.02(7) even implies the limitation Aguilar proposes. Aguilar, however, fastens onto the commentary to section 2.02, which states that " [s]ubsection (7) deals with the situation that British commentators have denominated as 'willful blindness.' " Model Penal Code § 2.02 comment 9 (Proposed Official Draft 1962). A more thorough reading of the comment reveals that the drafters did not conceive of subsection (7) as an exception to the knowledge requirement applicable only when "willful blindness" is an issue, but rather as a comprehensive definition of knowledge designed to account for "willful blindness." "The inference of 'knowledge' of an existing fact is usually drawn from proof of notice of high probability of its existence, unless the defendant establishes an honest, contrary belief. Subsection (7) solidifies this usual result and clarifies the terms in which the issue is submitted to the jury." Id. (emphasis added). Read in its entirety, the meaning of comment 9 is clear: section 2.02(7) was designed to incorporate the concept of "willful blindness" into a general definition of knowledge that would limit the equation of "willful blindness" to "knowledge" to circumstances in which the defendant really did have knowledge. See Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 3.5(b), at 307-08 (1986) ("The Model Penal Code requirement of an awareness of a high probability of the existence of the fact serves to ensure that the purpose to avoid learning the truth is culpable.").
This circuit first adopted the Model Penal Code definition in United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951, 96 S. Ct. 3173, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1188 (1976). There we recognized that section 2.02(7) purported to be a general definition of knowledge and we approved of it as such. " [I]n common understanding one 'knows' facts of which he is less than absolutely certain. To act 'knowingly,' therefore, is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge, but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question." Id. at 700. Judge (now Justice) Kennedy, writing for the dissent, agreed that section 2.02(7) is "a definition of knowledge, not a substitute for it." Id. at 707 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); see also United States v. Yermian, 708 F.2d 365, 371-72 (9th Cir. 1983) (recognizing the Model Penal Code definition as the " 'subjective standard of criminal knowledge required by this circuit"), rev'd on other grounds, 468 U.S. 63, 104 S. Ct. 2936, 82 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1984); 2 Edward J. Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 54.15, at 923 (1990) (citing Jewell for proposition that in drug possession crimes, " [a] defendant does not have to act with positive knowledge in order to be culpable. It is sufficient if the defendant acts with an awareness of the high probability of the fact in question.").
The Supreme Court's approval of section 2.02(7) as a general definition of knowledge is clear from its use of the definition in cases in which "willful blindness" was not an issue. In Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S. Ct. 1532, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57 (1969), the Court considered the constitutionality of a presumption in 21 U.S.C. § 176a that evidence sufficient to show that a defendant possessed marijuana is also sufficient to show that the defendant knew the marijuana was illegally imported. The Court employed section 2.02(7) to interpret the meaning of "knowing" in the statute. See id. at 46 n. 93, 89 S. Ct. at 1553; see also Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 845, 93 S. Ct. 2357, 2363, 37 L. Ed. 2d 380 (1973) (considering constitutionality of inference of knowledge from possession of stolen goods and upholding defendant's conviction for possession of stolen Treasury checks on ground that the evidence could support finding that defendant "must have known or been aware of a high probability that the checks were stolen"); Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 416, 90 S. Ct. 642, 652, 24 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1970) (relying on section 2.02(7) definition to interpret knowledge presumption in federal drug possession statute, 21 U.S.C. § 174); United States v. Hester, 880 F.2d 799, 803 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1989) (" [T]he Court has indicated general acceptance of the proposition that awareness of 'a high probability' that a fact exists may properly be equated with 'knowledge' in the interpretation of criminal statutes.") (citing Leary, 395 U.S. at 46 n. 93, 89 S. Ct. at 1553 n. 93).
Aguilar nevertheless argues that if applied where there is no evidence of "willful blindness," the Model Penal Code definition by itself implies a duty on the part of a defendant to learn a fact and therefore creates the risk that the defendant will be convicted for what he should have known. Aguilar relies on a line of cases holding that because a "willful blindness" instruction--which includes but is not limited to the Model Penal Code definition--carries with it the risk that the jury will evaluate the defendant's behavior under a negligence standard and convict him for what he should have known, it should only be given in the rare case in which there is evidence that the defendant deliberately avoided learning the truth. See e.g., United States v. Sanchez-Robles, 927 F.2d 1070, 1073-75 (9th Cir. 1991); Garzon, 688 F.2d at 609; Murrieta-Bejarano, 552 F.2d at 1325.
The Model Penal Code definition of knowledge standing alone implies no duty to discover facts. Contrary to Aguilar's argument, the definition describes a subjective state of mind, and therefore cannot subject a defendant to liability for negligence.8 See Yermian, 708 F.2d at 372 (subsection (7) as the " 'subjective' standard of criminal knowledge required by this circuit"); Ira P. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Deliberate Indifference as a Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 191, 227 (1990) (" [T]he Model Penal Code formulation protect [s] the defendant from conviction for merely negligent behavior."). Indeed, the "balancing clause" of the definition, which instructs the jury that a defendant does not have knowledge if he "actually believes [the fact] does not exist," ensures that the defendant is not convicted for negligence. United States v. Esquer-Gamez, 550 F.2d 1231, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1977).
I would hold that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that a person has knowledge if he is "aware of a high probability that a fact exists, unless he actually believes it does not exist." The definition describes a subjective state of mind and creates no risk that the defendant will be convicted for what he "should have known." Indeed it perfectly describes the state of mind that lay people typically regard as knowledge, that best fits the purpose of section 2232(c), and that this circuit and the Supreme Court have approved as a general definition of "knowledge." We conclude as well that the evidence of Judge Aguilar's "knowledge" was so substantial, that had the jury received no instruction, it would still have found that Judge Aguilar had knowledge of the wiretap.9 We need not be concerned that the instruction might have allowed the jury to convict Aguilar "even if he was uncertain about whether there was a wiretap," as the dissent fears, since the evidence reflected no uncertainty: Judge Aguilar himself admitted in tape recorded conversations with Solomon that he "knew." If the instruction were error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of Aguilar's admissions of knowledge.10 D. Burden of Proof
Aguilar next argues that the jury instructions on knowledge unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof onto him in violation of due process. Aguilar first raised his constitutional objection to the court's "knowledge" instruction in his motion for a new trial. When there is no objection to a jury instruction at trial, this Court reviews the instruction for plain error. United States v. Bustillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986). "A plain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights." Id.
In Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S. Ct. 2450, 61 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1979), the Supreme Court held that a jury instruction stating that " 'the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts,' violates the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that the State prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 512, 99 S. Ct. at 2453. A jury could interpret such an instruction as shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. Id. at 524, 99 S. Ct. at 2459.
[k]nowledge of the evidence of a particular circumstance may be satisfied by proof that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the existence of that circumstance [,] unless you find from the evidence that the defendant actually believed that the circumstance did not exist.
In Esquer-Gamez, we held that the "balancing clause" of the Model Penal Code definition is necessary to protect the defendant against the risk that he will be convicted for what he "should have known." See 550 F.2d at 1235-36. In United States v. Hogg, 670 F.2d 1358 (4th Cir. 1982), however, the Fourth Circuit held that a nearly identical instruction violated Sandstrom. That court concluded that a reasonable jury could interpret the instruction to mean that "once the government shows that the defendants knew [the circumstance] probably existed, the defendants must introduce more than some evidence that they had no actual knowledge to avoid a finding against them on this element." Id. at 1363-64. It held that Sandstrom "prohibits such a persuasion-shifting instruction." Id. at 1364.
I disagree that the reasoning of Sandstrom supports the holding of Hogg. In Sandstrom, the Court found that an instruction that the law presumes a person to intend the consequences of his acts could have shifted the burden of proof on the element of intent to the defendant: The jury "could have concluded that upon proof by the State of the slaying, and of additional facts not themselves establishing the element of intent, the burden was shifted to the defendant to prove that he lacked the requisite mental state." 442 U.S. at 524, 99 S. Ct. at 2459.
Furthermore, even if the instruction itself were faulty, which I believe is not so, we do not consider jury instructions in isolation, but rather in the context of the other instructions given. Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408, 1412 (9th Cir. 1986). We have held that reminders that the government has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt are sufficient to cure instructions that might otherwise shift the burden of proof. See United States v. Wyatt, 807 F.2d 1480, 1481-82 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 858, 108 S. Ct. 170, 98 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1987). Considered in context, the knowledge instruction hardly could have led a reasonable juror to conclude that Judge Aguilar had the burden of proving his lack of knowledge. The jury was reminded repeatedly that the government was required to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. And, as we have said, the evidence of Judge Aguilar's knowledge, coming as it did from his own mouth, was overwhelming. Because the jury was cautioned about the government's burden, and because the evidence was so weighty, the instruction could not have been "highly prejudicial" and therefore was not plain error.
The judicial obstruction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503,11 also contains a "knowledge" component. Though the text of the statute prescribes no scienter requirement, this circuit has held that knowledge of a judicial proceeding is an element of a section 1503 offense. See United States v. Washington Water Power Co., 793 F.2d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1157, 102 S. Ct. 1031, 71 L. Ed. 2d 315 (1982). The trial court, therefore, instructed the jury that "there must be knowledge of the existence of a judicial proceeding before a defendant can be convicted of this offense." It then defined knowledge in precisely the same terms it had used in the wiretap instruction.
Second, the circumstance upon which the district court based its departure is, regretfully, not all that unique. The Sentencing Guidelines' policy statement on departures states that courts should depart only in the "atypical" case. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A 4(b); cf. United States v. Anders, 956 F.2d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 1992) (factors "not ordinarily relevant" may be considered only in "extraordinary circumstances"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 1592, 123 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1993). The kind of additional humiliation and suffering Judge Aguilar will suffer, while not common, is not "atypical." The district court's reasoning would apply to many well-known figures in the worlds of government and finance who have been prosecuted over the last twenty years. I cannot accept the notion that the humiliation of disbarment or impeachment proceedings is different in kind or degree from the humiliation, shame and stigma borne by numerous other respected community members convicted of serious crimes.13
No one disputes that Judge Aguilar's job accounts for the collateral consequences he now faces in the form of "long, humiliating, and burdensome" proceedings of disbarment and impeachment, as well as loss of pension benefits and preclusion from public service. See post at 643-44.14 The plurality finds this permissible, however, because a departure on the basis of Judge Aguilar's job is not based on the judge's "status in society." Id. The plurality's own support refutes this notion: "the phrase 'socio-economic status' refers to an individual's status in society as determined by objective criteria such as education, income, and employment." United States v. Lopez, 938 F.2d 1293, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). In our society, rightly or wrongly, one's job is often equivalent to one's status in society. What is more, the plurality buttresses its conclusion that departure on the basis of Aguilar's job is permissible on the additional basis that Judge Aguilar stands to lose his pension too. See post at 644-45. How one could assert that financial ramifications of conviction is not a socio-economic factor is beyond comprehension.
A criminal conviction may mean a loss of current position and foreclosure of future professions or positions for many defendants. Professionals in the securities industry, once convicted of violating the securities laws, lose their brokers' licenses in quasi-judicial proceedings not unlike disbarment, and thereafter are barred from holding certain positions in the securities industry. See 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a), (b) (4) (1988). Likewise, persons convicted of certain offenses are barred from holding positions within a labor union or pension plan, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 504(a), 1111 (1988)--ironically, the genesis of Rudy Tham's solicitation of Judge Aguilar's influence and this case. I doubt any court would support a downward departure for a securities broker convicted of insider trading violations on the ground that she faced a burdensome civil liability proceeding, stood to lose her broker's license, would be barred from registering as a securities broker or dealer in the future, had to disgorge her profits, and suffered extreme public humiliation as she was drummed out of Wall Street. I cannot see that Judge Aguilar's position is so different.
The Guidelines' policy is that "persons who abuse their positions of trust ... generally are viewed as more culpable." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 comment. (backg'd). We must assume that the Sentencing Commission has adequately considered the special circumstances of defendants who hold high office, and rejected any notion that such persons should receive more lenient treatment. The district court's departure on the basis of consequences flowing from Judge Aguilar's breach of the public trust flies in the face of the Guidelines' policy. Collateral consequences of conviction arising from or affecting one's job simply are not a permissible basis for departure. See United States v. Rutana, 932 F.2d 1155, 1158-59 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 300, 116 L. Ed. 2d 243 (1991).
Marsh v. State Bar, 2 Cal. 2d 75, 39 P.2d 403, 405 (1934); accord In re Lavine, 126 F. Supp. 39, 48 (S.D. Cal. 1954), rev'd on other grounds, 217 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1954); United States ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Stump, 112 F. Supp. 236, 237 (D. Alaska 1953).
Second, because deportation is a normal collateral consequence of conviction for a drug offense, the plurality assumes the Sentencing Commission adequately considered it in determining the appropriate offense level for drug crimes. Apart from the fact that this logic is fallacious--the offense levels for drug convictions were set for aliens and citizens alike, so the consequence of deportation could not possibly be reflected in the offense level for drug crimes--the same reasoning would apply here: disbarment as a consequence of a serious criminal conviction is not rare, and indeed ought to follow as a matter of course. In re Quimby, 359 F.2d 257, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (per curiam). Accordingly, by the plurality's logic, we should assume the Sentencing Commission adequately allowed for that circumstance in determining offense levels.
In her discussion of section 2232(c), Judge Hall completely omits the statute's specific reference to "such interception." See Judge Hall's opinion at 614. Judge Hall states that " [t]he statute imposes liability on anyone 'having knowledge that a Federal investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization' to conduct a wiretap." Id. However, the statute must be read in its entirety; the statute imposes liability on anyone "having knowledge that a Federal investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization ... in order to obstruct, impede or prevent such interception." See 18 U.S.C. § 2232(c) (emphasis added).
I conclude that the statutory language is quite clearly directed to disclosure of a wiretap that could possibly result from the application of which the defendant has knowledge--not from some later application, which would require a completely new justification under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) (1988). At the very least, this is a reasonable construction of the statute. Judge Hall's opinion arrives at a different construction and rejects this construction. See Judge Hall's opinion at 615. In my opinion, Judge Hall's construction is an unwarranted expansion of the statutory language, and one which ignores the crucial phrase "such interception." However, even if Judge Hall's interpretation were possible because of some ambiguity, the more lenient construction is required. To reject a reasonable construction of a statute is incompatible with the rule of lenity. "In interpreting the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions, ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the criminal defendant." United States v. Baxley, 982 F.2d 1265, 1270 (9th Cir. 1992); see United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 121, 99 S. Ct. 2198, 2202, 60 L. Ed. 2d 755 (1979); Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 14, 98 S. Ct. 909, 913, 55 L. Ed. 2d 70 (1978). I find the plain language of the statute to be clear, but even if it were possible to wring Judge Hall's construction out of some ambiguity in the statute, it would violate the rule of lenity to do so.
First Amendment concerns also convince me that section 2232(c) cannot be construed to punish disclosure of all applications regardless of whether the applications are still pending. Statutes must be construed, if at all possible, to avoid constitutional problems. See Blitz v. Donovan, 740 F.2d 1241, 1244 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Government may regulate speech in order to promote a compelling state interest if it employs the least restrictive means to further that interest. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126, 109 S. Ct. 2829, 2836, 106 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1989). The Government does not have a compelling interest in prohibiting the disclosure of all wiretap applications because in many cases there is no danger of interference with a wiretap. The statute, as the Government interprets it, would punish constitutionally protected speech as well as constitutionally unprotected speech. The statute would therefore be overbroad and void on its face. See Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033, 1039 (9th Cir. 1981) ("overbreadth doctrine holds that a law is void on its face if it sweeps within its ambit not solely activity that is subject to governmental control, but also includes within its prohibition the practice of a protected constitutional right"), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927, 102 S. Ct. 1974, 72 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1982). Thus, to avoid this constitutional problem, we must construe the statute to prohibit the disclosure of pending applications and unexpired authorizations only.
Section 2232(c) is not a classic attempt statute. The classic attempt statute criminalizes an attempt to violate another statute or another statutory subsection. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1113 (1988) (criminalizing an attempt to commit murder or manslaughter; murder criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (1988) and manslaughter criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 1112 (1988)); 18 U.S.C. § 1201(d) (1988) (criminalizing an attempt to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) (4) (1988), which prohibits the kidnapping of foreign officials). There is not a statute that criminalizes attempts to violate section 2232(c), and section 2232(c) does not criminalize an attempt to violate another statute or statutory subsection.
The Model Jury Instruction for the Ninth Circuit instructs that " [a]n act is done knowingly if the defendant is aware of the act and does not act [or fail to act] through ignorance, mistake, or accident." Model Jury Instruction 5.06 (1992) (emphasis added).4 If awareness is knowledge, when a person is aware of a high probability that a circumstance exists, then what the person "knows" is that there is a high probability that the circumstance exists. Knowledge that there is a high probability that a circumstance exists cannot be equated, however, with knowledge that the circumstance itself exists. Furthermore, one can be aware of a high probability that something exists and actually believe that it exists, yet this is far short of knowing it exists. One cannot know something that does not exist. Yet, one can be aware of a high probability that a circumstance exists, and even believe that it exists, despite the fact it does not exist.
Model Penal Code § 2.02(2) (b) further demonstrates that section 2.02(7) is not a "comprehensive definition" of knowledge, as Judge Hall contends it is. See Judge Hall's opinion at 619. Section 2.02(2) is entitled "Kinds of Culpability Defined." Each crime described in the Model Penal Code requires a specific kind of culpability. Section 2.02(2) (b) defines the culpable state of "knowingly" and includes the definition for knowledge of a circumstance. It provides in relevant part:
Model Penal Code § 2.02(2) (b) (emphasis added). If section 2.02(7) were a comprehensive definition of knowledge, as Judge Hall maintains it is, there would be no need for section 2.02(2) (b) which is, in fact, the Model Penal Code's general definition of knowledge.
I am convinced that Model Penal Code § 2.02(7) is relevant only when there is evidence of willful blindness. In United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951, 96 S. Ct. 3173, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1188 (1976), this court considered a case in which the defendant purposely avoided learning whether there was marijuana in the car he was driving from Tijuana, Mexico, to California. In finding that the defendant "knew" of the marijuana, this court recognized that " 'knowingly' includes a mental state in which the defendant is aware that the fact in question is highly probable but consciously avoids enlightenment...." Id. at 704 (emphasis added). If, as Judge Hall and the Government contend, an awareness that a fact is highly probable constitutes knowledge, then the italicized part of the quoted sentence would be superfluous.
I can find no decisions by this court or by the Supreme Court that employ section 2.02(7) as a general definition of knowledge. Both the Government and Judge Hall rely on a footnote in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 46 n. 93, 89 S. Ct. 1532, 1553 n. 93, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57 (1969), for the proposition that section 2.02(7) is a general definition of knowledge. Their reliance on Leary is misplaced. The Leary Court did not purport to adopt section 2.02(7) as a general definition of knowledge. Examination of the footnote reveals that the Court adopted section 2.02(7) only for the purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. The entire footnote states:
Leary, 395 U.S. at 46 n. 93, 89 S. Ct. at 1553 n. 93 (emphasis added).
Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S. Ct. 642, 24 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1970), reinforces the conclusion that section 2.02(7) applies only to cases in which deliberate ignorance is a concern. In Turner, the statute at issue, 21 U.S.C. § 174, was virtually identical to the statute at issue in Leary, 21 U.S.C. § 176a. Section 176a was concerned with marijuana smuggling, and section 174 was concerned with narcotics smuggling. The Court concluded, " 'Common sense' (Leary v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. at 46, 89 S. Ct. at 1553) tells us that those who traffic in heroin will inevitably become aware that the product they deal in is smuggled, unless they practice a studied ignorance to which they are not entitled." Id. 396 U.S. at 417, 90 S. Ct. at 653 (citation in original) (footnote omitted).
Moreover, contrary to the Government's contentions, the legislative history of section 2232(c) does not indicate a congressional intent to adopt Model Penal Code § 2.02(7) as a general definition of knowledge. On June 19, 1986, the House Judiciary Committee reported the House bill as H.R. 4952. The report accompanying that bill included a footnote concerning the knowledge requirement for conviction of disclosing a wiretap. See H.R.Rep. No. 647, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 60, n. 91 (1986). The footnote simply refers to H.R.Rep. No. 1396, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 32-36 (1980), which accompanied the Criminal Code Revision Act of 1980. The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report to accompany its own bill, S. 2575. This Senate Report explains that to convict under section 2232(c), " [i]t is required that the defendant have knowledge that the Federal law enforcement or investigative officer has been authorized or has applied for an interception order." S.Rep. No. 541, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3588. The report makes no attempt to define knowledge, and the footnote present in the House Report is not contained in the Senate Report. The House eventually substituted the Senate bill for its own, and Congress enacted the Senate bill into law. Therefore, any definitions of knowledge contained in the House Report would be of dubious value in determining Congress's intended definition of knowledge.
The Model Penal Code language [in Section 2.02(7) ], in the words of its drafters, "deals with the situation British commentators have denominated 'wilful blindness' or 'connivance,' the case of the actor who is aware of the probable existence of a material fact but does not satisfy himself that it does not in fact exist." Model Penal Code section 2.02, Comment at 129-30 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955). The Committee intends to incorporate this Model Penal Code concept as that concept has been explained in such Federal cases as United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951, 96 S. Ct. 3173, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1188 (1976); and United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom. Thaler v. United States, 414 U.S. 821, 94 S. Ct. 131, 38 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1973).
The Government's reliance on United States v. Yermian, 708 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 468 U.S. 63, 104 S. Ct. 2936, 82 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1984), is also misplaced. In Yermian, the defendant was convicted of making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1976). Id. at 365-66. The issue in Yermian was whether an objective mens rea was sufficient for conviction. The court was not concerned with setting forth a general definition of knowledge. The district court instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant if it found "that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be submitted to the government." Id. at 371 (emphasis in original). In Yermian, we were concerned that the "should have known" language imposed an objective standard, and we concluded that a subjective state of mind was necessary. See id. at 372.
The Due Process Clause places the burden on the Government to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970). The instruction relieved the Government of this burden of proof by requiring the jury to infer knowledge from the defendant's awareness of a high probability that a circumstance existed. The instruction was therefore improper.
The instruction's balancing clause, which states, "unless you find from the evidence that the defendant actually believed that the circumstance did not exist," does not remedy the flawed instruction. This clause merely made the conclusive inference rebuttable. The burden of rebuttal was placed on the defendant. Under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 521, 99 S. Ct. 2450, 2458, 61 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1979), this burden shifting is constitutional error. See United States v. Hogg, 670 F.2d 1358, 1363-64 (4th Cir. 1982) (instructing jury to infer knowledge from deliberate avoidance unless defendant believed circumstance did not exist was constitutional error). The instruction allowed the jury to convict Judge Aguilar even if he was uncertain about whether there was a wiretap application or authorization. See United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 886 (D.C. Cir.) (requirement that defendant prove he lacked a belief reverses the burden of proof; knowledge does not mean lack of knowledge), superseded on other grounds, 920 F.2d 940 (1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2235, 114 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1991).
Furthermore, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993), indicates that an erroneous instruction on an essential element of the crime can never be harmless because it deprives a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to have the jury determine that issue of fact. The Sullivan Court held that an erroneous instruction defining reasonable doubt cannot be harmless because the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to have the jury determine his guilt. Id. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 2081-83. It does not fulfill Sixth Amendment requirements to have judges hypothesize that a guilty verdict would have been rendered no matter how overwhelming the evidence of guilt might be. Id. at 2081-83.
Harmless-error review looks, we have said, to the basis on which "the jury actually rested its verdict." Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. ----, ----, 111 S. Ct. 1884, 1893, 114 L. Ed. 2d 432 (1991) (emphasis added). The inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error. That must be so, because to hypothesize a guilty verdict that was never in fact rendered--no matter how inescapable the findings to support that verdict might be--would violate the jury-trial guarantee.
This principle is equally applicable to a finding of an essential element of a crime--in this case, knowledge. In order to render a verdict of guilty, a jury must find all of the essential elements of the crime, under proper instructions. " [A] jury's verdict [of guilty] cannot stand if the instructions provided the jury do not require it to find each element of the crime under a proper standard of proof." Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 384, 106 S. Ct. 689, 696, 88 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1986) (emphasis added) (citing Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S. Ct. 2450, 61 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1979)). Here, the jury did not make afinding of knowledge under a proper instruction. For appellate court judges to make this finding, by concluding what the jury would have found under a proper instruction, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to have a jury actually make that finding. It is a structural error of constitutional dimension--the judges, instead of the jury, are making the finding essential to the verdict. See Sullivan, --- U.S. at ---- - --, 113 S. Ct. at 2082-83.
Justice Scalia vividly makes this point in his earlier concurring opinion in Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 109 S. Ct. 2419, 105 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1989).
The constitutional right to a jury trial embodies "a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered." It is a structural guarantee that "reflect [s] a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power--a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges." A defendant may assuredly insist upon observance of this guarantee even when the evidence against him is so overwhelming as to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why the Court has found it constitutionally impermissible for a judge to direct a verdict for the State.
Id. at 268-69, 109 S. Ct. at 2422 (internal citations omitted).
The conviction on this charge requires reversal because the interpretation of section 1503 cannot be stretched to reach the facts of this case. The facts are that Judge Aguilar, as a target of the investigation, gave misinformation to the FBI, minimizing his involvement with Chapman and attorney Solomon. At most, this is a false statement to the FBI that interferes with its investigation. This type of offense would have to be proved under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1988), which concerns false statements to federal agencies. Judge Aguilar was not charged with a violation of section 1001. Furthermore, even under a section 1001 charge, the statute does not apply to certain situations where a truthful response would have incriminated the declarant. This is known as the "exculpatory no" doctrine. We explained the application of section 1001 and the "exculpatory no" doctrine in United States v. Equihua-Juarez, 851 F.2d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir. 1988).
A brief history of section 1503 is enlightening as to Congress's intended application of the statute. Briefly stated, section 1503, as it was originally enacted in 1948, specifically proscribed certain conduct seeking to influence witnesses in judicial proceedings. The title of the section, as well as the body, indicated that the statute was intended to cover judicial officers, jurors, and witnesses. The full text of the statute is set forth in the margin.8 In 1982, Congress enacted the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 96 Stat. 1248 (1982). This new statute removed all references to witnesses in section 1503 and enacted a new section, section 1512, addressed specifically to the influencing of witnesses, victims, and informants. The Second Circuit in United States v. Hernandez, 730 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir. 1984), stated in its conclusion that section 1512 replaced that part of section 1503 that pertained to witnesses. The Hernandez case involved a threat to kill a witness, and the court held that the charge could not be sustained under section 1503. Id.
Our court faced a charge of witness tampering under somewhat difference circumstances in United States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984). The facts in the Lester case involved the hiding and bribing of a witness in order to prevent him from testifying in a criminal trial. We disagreed with the broad statement of the Second Circuit in the Hernandez case that "congress affirmatively intended to remove witnesses entirely from the scope of § 1503." Id. at 1295. We distinguished Hernandez, noting that it dealt with intimidation and harassment of a witness, whereas Lester involved non-coercive witness tampering. We observed that section 1512 did not encompass such non-coercive conduct and, thus, concluded that this conduct still remained punishable under the omnibus clause of section 1503. Id. at 1295-96.
In 1986, the Second Circuit dispelled any doubts about what was meant by the Hernandez opinion, stating that section 1512 was intended to completely supplant the portion of section 1503 that dealt with witnesses. United States v. Jackson, 805 F.2d 457, 461 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 922, 107 S. Ct. 1384, 94 L. Ed. 2d 698 (1987). This presented a clear conflict with our Lester case.
An additional reason why the evidence in this case is insufficient to sustain a conviction under section 1503 is the lack of proof that the FBI was acting on behalf of the grand jury. We have interpreted section 1503 as extending only to interference with a pending judicial proceeding. United States v. Brown, 688 F.2d 596, 598 (9th Cir. 1982). Interference with a government agency's investigation is insufficient. Id. There is no evidence that a grand jury had authorized or directed the FBI investigation; nor is there evidence that the FBI agents had been subpoenaed to testify. At most, the conduct alleged was interference with an FBI investigation, not a judicial proceeding. The mere fact that the FBI investigation could result in producing evidence that might be presented to a grand jury is insufficient to constitute a violation of section 1503. In Brown, we held that although warning the target of a search warrant did interfere with a police investigation, it did not constitute interference with a grand jury proceeding even though evidence derived from the search might have been presented to a grand jury. See id.
Even if section 1503 applied to false statements made to FBI agents, we would have to reverse because the knowledge instruction was erroneous. The violation of section 1503 requires that the defendant know of the pending judicial proceeding and that the FBI agents were expected to be called to testify. See United States v. Washington Water Power Co., 793 F.2d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 1986). There is a serious question of fact, given the noncommittal responses of the FBI agents, as to whether Judge Aguilar knew a grand jury had been convened and, if so, what it was investigating. Furthermore, it was not at all clear that the agents were expected to be called to testify before a grand jury.
In Section II. C., I have discussed the serious error in the knowledge instruction given by the court. Under that instruction, the jury could have convicted Judge Aguilar even if he was not actually aware of the pertinent facts, provided the jury found that there was a "high probability" that he knew. In light of the conflicting evidence, this error could not have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As previously noted, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sullivan indicates that an erroneous instruction on an essential element of the crime can never be harmless. See --- U.S. at ---- - --, 113 S. Ct. at 2081-83.
As to the appeal of the sentence, we reject the government's challenge to the district court's decision to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the court failed to follow the procedure set forth in United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Consequently, we must vacate the sentence on Count Six and remand for resentencing.
I believe that Judge Hug's analysis of the knowledge instruction is correct. Therefore, reversal on both counts is required unless the error was logically harmless beyond any reasonable doubt because the record compels a guilty verdict. United States v. Sanchez-Robles, 927 F.2d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Alvarado, 838 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir.) ("Application of the harmless error doctrine is appropriate where the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that a conviction is compelled."), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222, 108 S. Ct. 2880, 101 L. Ed. 2d 915 and 488 U.S. 838, 109 S. Ct. 103, 102 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1988). Applying any other standard of review to this erroneous instruction would allow for conviction without establishment of knowledge, an essential element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970) (due process requires that each element of an offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt). But see United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911, 915-16 (9th Cir. 1977) (noting some confusion in the cases, but observing that errors in jury instructions are generally considered non-constitutional and therefore the standard from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967), need not apply).
On the other hand, I cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to Count Eight, the obstruction of justice count. The obstruction count requires a showing that the defendant knew: (1) that a grand jury was meeting, and (2) that the person tampered with was expected to be called as a witness before the grand jury. United States v. Washington Water Power Co., 793 F.2d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 1986). There appears to be no room to doubt that Judge Aguilar knew a grand jury was meeting. Solomon told Judge Aguilar, in a recorded conversation on May 26, 1988, one month before the alleged violation, that the FBI had told him a grand jury was in session. Judge Aguilar indicated his understanding of this information by observing, later in the same conversation, "if they subpoena me I may have a problem."
Jury instructions are not to be examined in isolation. Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408, 1412 (9th Cir. 1986). The erroneous knowledge instruction could theoretically have been cured by the trial judge's instruction on intent to "impede, interfere with or obstruct the functioning of that grand jury." In my view, however, the intent instruction does not ameliorate the flaw in the knowledge instruction. The jurors may have concluded that Judge Aguilar intended to "obstruct the functioning of the grand jury" by inducing the government not to seek an indictment against him. Yet the government does not argue, and I do not believe, that such a showing is sufficient to violate section 1503. I therefore conclude that the erroneous knowledge instruction requires reversal of the conviction on Count Eight.
Our review of the departure imposed by the district court involves three steps. United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). First, we must determine whether the district court had the legal authority to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 746. Second, we review for clear error factual findings supporting the existence of the identified circumstance. Id. at 746-47. Third, we must determine whether a six level departure downward was unreasonable. Id. at 747. Here, because the district court's statement did not include "a reasoned explanation of the extent of the departure founded on the structure, standards and policies of the Act and Guidelines," id., the district court failed to comply with the underlying requirements of the third step of Lira-Barraza and we must remand.
Nor was this departure "inconsistent with the Guidelines' policy that disparity in sentencing should never be occasioned by socio-economic factors." The district court did not rely on socioeconomic status to support its departure. Rather, the district court relied upon a determination that Judge Aguilar, because he is a federal judge, would be subject to punishment in addition to the court-imposed sentence. Judge Aguilar's job accounts for this extra punishment; the departure was not based on his level of wealth, privilege, or "status in society."2 Cf. United States v. Lopez, 938 F.2d 1293, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Additional punishment appears to be a valid mitigating factor. Cf. United States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599, 601-03 (2d Cir. 1990) (departure upheld where defendant's vulnerability required prison officials to place him in solitary confinement, increasing the severity of his punishment).3 Moreover, unlike Judge Hall, we do not consider each particular aspect of the additional punishment facing Judge Aguilar "abstractly and alone," United States v. Cook, 938 F.2d 149, 153 (9th Cir. 1991), but instead recognize the "unique combination of factors" that comprises the mitigating circumstance in this case. Id.
Judge Aguilar, if he is subjected to impeachment proceedings, will suffer additional punishment by the government, imposed in a public, quasi-judicial proceeding. If convicted upon impeachment, not only will he be removed from his otherwise life-tenured position, he will be disqualified from holding any future government appointive position. See United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448, 85 S. Ct. 1707, 1714, 14 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1965) ("Disqualification from office may be punishment, as in cases of conviction upon impeachment.") (quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 277, 320, 18 L. Ed. 356 (1866)). If convicted upon impeachment, Judge Aguilar will also suffer full forfeiture of his pension rights, a loss of considerable economic significance.4 Unlike most federal officers and employees, an Article III judge's pension does not vest until he attains at least age sixty-five and meets certain service requirements, typically fifteen years. See 28 U.S.C. § 371. In contrast, had he been an Article I judge such as a bankruptcy judge, or a magistrate judge, Judge Aguilar would have begun vesting upon completion of eight years of service and by now would be nearly fully vested in his right to receive the salary of the office for life beginning at age sixty-five. See 28 U.S.C. § 377. Therefore, unlike an Article I judge, or any other federal official or employee for that matter, an Article III judge who leaves office for any reason prior to the age of sixty-five forfeits all pension rights no matter how many years he may have served. From publicly available material, it appears that Judge Aguilar has served on the bench since 1980; should he leave office before April 15, 1996, the date of his sixty-fifth birthday, he will receive no retirement benefits whatsoever. This will be true whether he resigns voluntarily or suffers impeachment.
"The Guidelines are not a straightjacket for district judges. They do provide discretion to depart." Cook, 938 F.2d at 152. Congress has instructed sentencing courts "to provide just punishment for the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2) (A). In this case, Judge Hall would have us remand for the imposition of a more severe sentence even though we reverse one count of conviction. To do so without allowing the district court to consider in its discretion the additional formal punishment and the unusual financial ramifications that arise because of the appellant's job as an Article III judge would violate Congress's mandate to provide just punishment.
Judge Hug's proposition that we view the facts from Judge Aguilar's perspective because the jury acquitted him on the conspiracy charge is novel, to say the least. See post at 627-28 (Hug, J., dissenting). The acquittal did not prove Aguilar's innocence; at most it proves a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. See United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361-62, 104 S. Ct. 1099, 1104, 79 L. Ed. 2d 361 (1984). We have no way of knowing whether the jury acquitted Aguilar on the evidence or by way of mistake, compromise or lenity. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65, 105 S. Ct. 471, 476, 83 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1984). We do know that the jury did not credit all of Judge Aguilar's testimony, given the two convictions. We view the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdicts. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 469, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 1992)
We note that impossibility is generally not a defense to a crime. See, e.g., United States v. Quijada, 588 F.2d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1978) ("generally, a defendant should be treated in accordance with the facts as he supposed them to be."). The fact that the particular wiretap had expired should not insulate Aguilar from his attempt to frustrate the surveillance effort, particularly where, as here, subsequent wiretaps were in place such that he accomplished his objective
A passage in the House Report on the Act states that section 2232(c) requires "that the defendant have knowledge that the federal law enforcement or investigative officer has been authorized to or has applied for an interception order." H.R.Rep. No. 647, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, 60 (1986). The word "knowledge" is footnoted " [s]ee House Report 96-1396, Criminal Code Revision Act of 1980, at 32-36." Id. at 60 n. 91. The cited pages describe the mens rea requirements of the Model Penal Code, which were to have been adopted as part of the 1980 reform proposal. See H.R.Rep. No. 1396, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, 32-36 (1980). The Report does not resolve the question at issue here--whether Congress believed that definition should apply in cases where "deliberate ignorance" is not an issue. See id. at 35-36
It seems to be the typical practice of judges on this circuit not to give any definition of "knowledge." The Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions do not include an instruction defining knowledge. And we have previously held that it is not error for a court not to define "knowingly." "The word is a common word which an average juror can understand and which the average juror could have applied to the facts of this case without difficulty." United States v. Chambers, 918 F.2d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir. 1990). As I have already indicated, I believe the average juror's understanding of "knowledge" comports with the instruction given in this case
The dissent finds a serious factual question as to what Aguilar knew and what he merely suspected. Post at 635. It is impossible for a jury to know the strength of certainty with which a belief is held, which may run the continuum from doubt to suspicion to belief to certainty, except by what is manifested objectively. I do not believe the jury was required to disbelieve what Aguilar said he knew and find that he could not actually have known it. Judge Aguilar's contention that Aguilar could not have known a fact that did not exist, see post at 635-36, suggests that his concern is not with the knowledge instruction; rather, it is with the notion that Aguilar's crime is a factual impossibility. When disclosure of actual surveillance efforts occurs, the specific intent to frustrate surveillance efforts exists, and there is subjective belief in the existence of attendant circumstances that makes the conduct and intent criminal, any error as to that belief does not relieve the act of its culpability. Thus the drug dealer who sells soap powder mistakenly "knowing" it to be heroin is guilty. See Quijada, 588 F.2d at 1255 (citing United States v. Roman, 356 F. Supp. 434, 438 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 484 F.2d 1271 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 978, 94 S. Ct. 1565, 39 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1974))
Where most defendant characteristics are deemed "not ordinarily relevant," socio-economic status is flatly "not relevant." Thus, although some offender characteristics may be taken into account where not adequately considered by the Guidelines, socio-economic status is not one of these. The plurality's suggestion to the contrary is troubling. See post at 627 n. 2. To the extent that United States v. Valdez-Gonzalez, 957 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1992), stands for the proposition that a court may consider socio-economic "factors," as opposed to "status," it should be noted that (1) the "factors" considered therein were "the socioeconomics and the internal politics of the drug trade along the Mexican border," 957 F.2d at 649, not factors unique to the defendants' personal situations; (2) the court looked to socio-economic factors not as a basis for departure, but in evaluating an otherwise permissible factor (role in the offense); and (3) the departures were at least consistent with the Guidelines, paralleling downward adjustments the defendants would have received under section 3B1.2 had the other participants in their crimes been indicted. See 957 F.2d at 648. Valdez-Gonzalez is surely no support for the result in this case
The plurality characterizes this as "extra punishment," post at 644, and perhaps rightfully so. But it is a far cry from solitary confinement in prison, the only instance of extra punishment held to warrant downward departure. See United States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1990)
Section 472 of Title 18 provides a fitting analogy. Section 472 punishes a person who "passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell" counterfeited obligations or securities. 18 U.S.C. § 472 (1988) (emphasis added). To be convicted of passing counterfeit money, the defendant must know that the money is counterfeit. United States v. Palacios, 835 F.2d 230, 232 (9th Cir. 1987). In addition, to be convicted of attempting to pass a counterfeit bill, the defendant must know that the bill is counterfeit. See United States v. Lacey, 459 F.2d 86, 88-89 (2d Cir. 1972). Thus, the attempt language in section 472 does not eliminate the knowledge element of the crime
This definition comports with the definition of knowledge contained in Model Penal Code § 2.02(2) (b), which is discussed below
The Second Circuit in United States v. Masterpol, 940 F.2d 760, 763 (2d Cir. 1991), observed that the 1988 amendments "diminished significantly" the force of the Lester precedent. Perhaps, more fundamentally, it could be stated that the problem we saw in Lester was alleviated by Congress
We note in passing that, although the Guidelines specifically state that "socioeconomic status" is not a relevant factor in sentence determination, U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10, this court has recently suggested that consideration of socioeconomic "factors" may not always be precluded. United States v. Valdez-Gonzalez, 957 F.2d 643, 649 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1992).
The extra punishment identified by the district court can be distinguished from other collateral effects arising from conviction. For example, our court has held that the likelihood of deportation is not a valid basis for departure. United States v. Alvarez-Cardenas, 902 F.2d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ceja-Hernandez, 895 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1990). These deportation cases, however, are distinguishable in two respects. First, despite its undeniable impact, deportation is not considered punitive. See Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531, 74 S. Ct. 737, 742, 98 L. Ed. 911 (1954). Second, Alvarez-Cardenas involved a drug conviction, and Ceja-Hernandez a conviction for illegal presence in the United States. Deportation as a consequence of the former is not rare, and as a consequence of the latter is the rule. We must therefore assume that the Sentencing Commission took the possibility of deportation into account when determining the appropriate offense level for these crimes. See Ceja-Hernandez, 895 F.2d at 545
See Nixon v. United States, 938 F.2d 239, 248, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Edwards, J., dissenting in part and concurring in judgment) (noting the recent impeachments of Harry E. Claiborne and Alcee Hastings, as well as Walter Nixon), aff'd, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 732, 122 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1993); see also United States v. Claiborne, 765 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1120, 106 S. Ct. 1636, 90 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1986); United States v. Nixon, 816 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 827 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1026, 108 S. Ct. 749, 98 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1988); and United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 1812, 123 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1993)