United States v. Martin
228 F.3d 1 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tacit agreement, inferred from defendants' words and actions such as email correspondence, is sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy. Conviction for conspiracy to steal trade secrets requires proof of intent to steal such secrets, not proof that the information stolen actually qualified as a trade secret.
Facts:
- Caryn Camp began working as a chemist at IDEXX, a veterinary products manufacturer, and signed non-disclosure and non-competition agreements.
- Dr. Stephen Martin contacted IDEXX with a research proposal that was ultimately rejected, but he signed a confidentiality agreement during the process.
- In January 1998, a dissatisfied Camp contacted Martin via email about potential job opportunities at his company.
- Over the next several months, Camp and Martin developed an email correspondence where they joked about being spies, with Martin referring to Camp as "Agent Ace."
- Camp began sending Martin confidential IDEXX information, including customer complaints, strategic weaknesses, and internal memoranda.
- Martin made explicit requests for information on IDEXX's products, prices, and technology, and later instructed Camp to "absorb as much information, physically and intellectually, as you can" before leaving her job.
- Camp mailed Martin two packages containing various IDEXX documents and property, including research data, a binder labeled "Competition," and a copy of proprietary "x-Chek" software.
- Camp inadvertently forwarded an email detailing the contents of a package to her manager at IDEXX, which exposed the scheme.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned an indictment charging Dr. Stephen R. Martin and Caryn L. Camp with multiple federal offenses.
- Caryn L. Camp entered a plea agreement with the government, agreeing to testify against Martin.
- Martin was tried by a jury in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The jury found Martin guilty of four counts of wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to steal trade secrets, and one count of conspiracy to transport stolen property.
- Martin (appellant) appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The United States was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of an email correspondence in which one party encourages an employee of a competitor to gather and send proprietary information and physical property sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to steal trade secrets, conspiracy to transport stolen goods, and mail and wire fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Chief Judge
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. A criminal conspiracy can be established through a tacit agreement, which a reasonable jury could infer from the ongoing email correspondence, the use of 'spy' terminology, and Martin's explicit requests for information after Camp had already expressed hesitation about sharing confidential data. For conspiracy to steal trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. § 1832, the prosecution need only prove the defendant intended to steal trade secrets, not that the information ultimately obtained met the statutory definition of a trade secret. Similarly, a jury could plausibly find Martin knew the property he requested, such as the x-Chek software and test kits, was stolen and that he conspired to transport goods he believed exceeded the $5,000 statutory value threshold. Finally, the evidence supported a conviction for mail and wire fraud under two theories: a 'property theory,' where Martin schemed to defraud IDEXX of its confidential information, and an 'honest services' theory, where Martin aided and abetted Camp in breaching her fiduciary duty to IDEXX in a manner that created a reasonably foreseeable economic harm to the company.
Analysis:
This case is a significant early example of how electronic communications can serve as the primary evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy in the context of corporate espionage. The court's holding reinforces that a formal or express agreement is not necessary; a 'tacit' understanding inferred from a pattern of conduct and communication is sufficient. The decision clarifies that for inchoate crimes like conspiracy, the defendant's criminal intent is the critical element, obviating the need for the government to prove the successful commission of the underlying offense. It also affirms the application of the 'honest services' fraud doctrine to private employees, setting a precedent that aiding an employee's breach of loyalty that poses foreseeable economic harm to their employer constitutes a federal crime.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Martin