Opinion ID: 2981240
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probative of issue other than character

Text: We turn, then, to whether the evidence is probative of a material issue other than character. “Evidence of other acts is probative of a material issue other than character if (1) the evidence is offered for an admissible purpose, (2) the purpose for which the evidence is offered is material or ‘in issue,’ and (3) the evidence is probative with regard to the purpose for which it is offered.” Haywood, 280 F.3d at 720. No. 12-1015 United States v. Qin, et al. Page 8 Although the district court did not address the first part of this inquiry directly, the government clearly purported to offer the 404(b) evidence for an admissible purpose: to show Defendants’ specific intent, participation in a common scheme or plan, and absence of mistake or accident.2 See, e.g., United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 1985) (noting other permissible uses of 404(b) evidence, including its use to show a common scheme or plan). The district court was likewise silent on the second prong, but we agree with the government’s argument that its proffered purposes are material by virtue of the mens rea elements of the charged offenses and Du’s defense that she only retained possession of the GM files inadvertently. Thus, our inquiry turns to whether evidence of Qin’s alleged misappropriation of CPC parts, information, and time is probative of Defendants’ specific intent to steal trade secrets from GM. Id. “To determine if evidence of other acts is probative of intent, we look to whether the evidence relates to conduct that is ‘substantially similar and reasonably near in time’ to the specific intent offense at issue.” Haywood, 280 F.3d at 721 (quoting Blankenship, 775 F.2d at 739). The district court based its exclusion of the 404(b) evidence on this prong, ruling that the proffered evidence was not probative of Defendants’ criminal intent because it was not substantially similar to the charged offenses. We agree. The government proffered evidence that Qin misappropriated CPC electrical parts for use in MTI products, that he used CPC forms and documents for the benefit of MTI, and that Qin and his subordinates conducted MTI business during CPC work time. The charged offenses, in contrast, were conspiracy to possess and unauthorized possession of trade secrets. These charges require the government to prove that Defendants stole information that GM had taken reasonable measures to keep confidential and that the stolen information “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable 2 We note, however, that it is a fine line the government attempts to draw between conduct that is part of a common scheme or plan and conduct that is in conformity with character. The government argues that “[a]llowing the jury to see the full picture in the context of the common scheme of stealing from employers to benefit their private company makes it more likely the jury will understand that Du’s possession of GM trade secrets was for the benefit of MTI and not a mistake.” In essence, the government would be asking the jury to find that Qin and Du stole from her employer by introducing evidence that Qin (possibly) stole from his. This sounds perilously close to the definition of improper character evidence. No. 12-1015 United States v. Qin, et al. Page 9 through proper means by, the public[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). Moreover, the government must prove that Defendants stole this information with the specific intent to convert it for the economic benefit of someone other than GM. Id. at § 1832(a). While it is possible to generalize Qin’s alleged conduct in such a way as to make it sound substantially similar to the conduct charged in the indictment (e.g., Qin stealing from CPC is substantially similar to Qin and Du stealing from GM), that would be an over-simplification. Pilfering office supplies—or discarded electrical parts, for that matter—and conducting personal business on company time may well constitute theft, but they are of a fundamentally different character than stealing trade secrets, which involves gaining unauthorized access to highly confidential and valuable intellectual property and converting that information for one’s own economic benefit. We find no error in the district court’s determination that these acts were not substantially similar.