Opinion ID: 2803338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructions on Misuse of Government Seal

Text: The jury convicted defendants of misuse of a government seal under 18 U.S.C. § 1017. In relevant part, the statute criminalizes the use of a document to which a government seal has -14- been fraudulently affixed where the user acts with knowledge of the document's fraudulent character, and with wrongful or fraudulent intent.16 In addressing the charged violation of this statute, the district court instructed the jury that the government had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict under 18 U.S.C. § 1017: One, that the defendant procured or transferred a document to which was affixed the seal of the Department of the Treasury. Two, that the defendant knew that the seal had been fraudulently affixed to the document; and, three, that the defendant acted with a fraudulent intent when he did that. Defendants argue that this instruction was erroneous because it failed to tell the jurors that they also needed to find that the seal was fraudulently affixed to or impressed on the document. We disagree. The charge as given efficiently made clear that, in order to convict, the jurors needed to find that defendants knew that the seal had been fraudulently affixed to the 16 The statute states: Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses , buys, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1017 (emphasis added). -15- document. See 18 U.S.C. § 1017. The jurors could not logically make such a finding unless they also concluded that the seal was indeed fraudulently affixed. Such a conclusion was inevitable. Each time one of the ersatz forms was printed onto a piece of paper, the seal was affixed to the paper for a fraudulent purpose. Defendants' use of the documents therefore plainly constituted that which the statute on its face criminalizes: us[ing] a document . . . to which or upon which [the] seal has been . . . fraudulently affixed or impressed . . . . Id.; see also United States v. Goodyke, 639 F.3d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 2011).