United States v. Miller
2010 WL 4723185, 626 F.3d 682, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24052 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court order is valid and must be obeyed unless it is stayed or overturned; therefore, evidence of a pending appeal of a custody order is not relevant to challenge the existence of 'lawful parental rights' under the International Parental Kidnapping statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1204.
Facts:
- Michelle Favreau and Keith Miller divorced in 1999, with a Vermont court granting Favreau custody of their son, Robbie, and Miller visitation rights.
- After moving to Massachusetts, Favreau obtained an abuse prevention order, which was later modified by a Massachusetts court on June 15, 2000, to grant Miller six, two-hour supervised visits with Robbie.
- Following the first supervised visit, Favreau began moving with Robbie to avoid Miller.
- On May 23, 2001, Favreau took Robbie to Canada, admitting at trial that she knew at the time that Miller was still entitled to five more supervised visits under the Massachusetts order.
- While Favreau was in Canada, a Vermont Family Court issued an order on September 13, 2002, granting Miller full custody of Robbie.
- Favreau remained in Canada with Robbie and initiated her own custody proceedings in Quebec, which eventually awarded her custody.
- Favreau returned to the United States without Robbie in January 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Favreau was indicted on one count of international parental kidnapping in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on December 2, 2002.
- Prior to her federal trial, Favreau moved to either stay the proceedings pending the outcome of her civil custody appeal in Vermont state court or, alternatively, to introduce evidence of that pending appeal to the jury.
- The district court denied both requests, ruling that the evidence of the pending appeal was irrelevant and inadmissible.
- Following a jury trial in July 2007, Favreau was found guilty.
- Favreau was sentenced on February 28, 2008, to time served and one year of supervised release.
- Favreau (Defendant-Appellant) appealed her conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the district court's evidentiary ruling and denial of a continuance.
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 a pending appeal of a state court custody order relevant in a federal prosecution for international parental kidnapping to challenge either the existence of the other parent's 'lawful parental rights' or the defendant's intent to obstruct them?
Opinions:
Majority - Livingston, J.
No. Evidence of a pending appeal of a custody order is not relevant to the defendant's guilt for international parental kidnapping. A court order must be complied with promptly and, absent a stay, remains in full force during an appeal. Therefore, the pending appeal did not negate the lawful parental rights granted to Miller by the Vermont court order. The evidence could, at most, show Favreau's disagreement with the law, which is not a defense, unlike a good-faith misunderstanding of it. Furthermore, even if the exclusion was an error, it was harmless because the government presented overwhelming evidence of guilt based on Favreau's undisputed violation of the earlier Massachusetts visitation order, which was not under appeal.
Dissenting - Straub, J.
Yes. The evidence of the pending appeal was relevant and its exclusion was a reversible error. The threshold for relevance under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 is very low. While the appeal did not negate the existence of Miller's rights, it was relevant to the essential element of Favreau's specific intent. The evidence tended to show that Favreau's motive may have been to vindicate her own parental rights through the Canadian and Vermont legal systems, rather than specifically to obstruct Miller's rights. The jury, not the court, should have been allowed to weigh this evidence, and its exclusion was not harmless because it went to the central issue of the case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of finality for court orders, clarifying that an unstayed order creates immediately enforceable rights that are not suspended by the mere filing of an appeal. For specific intent crimes like international parental kidnapping, the ruling narrows the scope of admissible evidence a defendant can use to challenge their mens rea. It establishes that a defendant's disagreement with a valid court order, even when formalized through an appeal, is irrelevant to the existence of the victim's lawful rights and may be excluded from the jury's consideration of intent.
