United States v. Reichert
747 F.3d 445 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction containing a partially imprecise statement on the element of willfulness does not constitute reversible error if the instructions, when viewed as a whole, fairly and adequately state the law by otherwise correctly defining willfulness and deliberate ignorance.
Facts:
- Jeffrey J. Reichert was a moderator for Xbox-scene.com, an online forum dedicated to discussing the modification of video game consoles.
- Reichert developed skills in modifying consoles through a high school vocational program and self-tutelage.
- In 2007, an undercover federal agent contacted Reichert and requested a modified Nintendo Wii.
- Reichert purchased a Wii, installed a 'modification chip' (mod chip), and sold the modified console to the agent, making a $50 profit.
- The modified Wii was capable of playing both legitimate and pirated video games.
- In online posts, Reichert stated that certain modifications were 'not for ... normal people' and admitted, 'we aren't technically supposed to do it.'
- During an interview with a federal agent, Reichert stated that he knew installing mod chips was in a 'gray area' of the law.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey J. Reichert was charged in a one-count indictment in the U.S. District Court (trial court) for trafficking in circumvention technology in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
- At trial, Reichert objected to the court's proposed jury instruction on 'deliberate ignorance', but the objection was overruled.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a 'special skills' enhancement over Reichert's objection and sentenced him to twelve months and one day of imprisonment.
- Reichert appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 'deliberate ignorance' jury instruction that, in one part, appears to equate knowledge of the prohibited conduct with knowledge of its illegality fatally misstate the 'willfulness' requirement for a criminal violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), when the instructions as a whole also correctly define willfulness as knowing one's conduct is unlawful?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, J.
No, the jury instruction does not constitute reversible error because the instructions viewed as a whole properly stated the law. Although one part of the deliberate ignorance instruction was 'mildly imprecise,' it must not be viewed in isolation. The imprecise sentence was immediately preceded by a correct definition of 'willfulness'—requiring an 'intent to disobey or disregard the law' and knowledge of a legal duty—and immediately followed by a correct articulation of deliberate ignorance, which required the jury to find Reichert was 'aware of a high probability that he was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' When considered as a whole, these instructions fairly and adequately submitted the issues to the jury and did not fatally undermine the DMCA's willfulness requirement.
Dissenting - Donald, J.
Yes, the jury instruction was a fatal error because it misstated the crucial element of willfulness in a case where the underlying law is already ambiguous. The legal status of 'mod chips' under the DMCA is complex and subject to competing interpretations, creating a heightened risk for juror confusion. Given this ambiguity, a clear and correct instruction on the mens rea requirement was essential. Because the court provided contradictory instructions, it is impossible to know whether the jury applied the correct or incorrect standard, and this uncertainty undermines the verdict. The error was not harmless because it directly undermined Reichert's only defense in a case where the evidence of his willful intent to break the law was not overwhelming.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the appellate standard of reviewing jury instructions in their totality, demonstrating that minor or isolated imprecisions may not be fatal if the overall charge conveys the correct legal principles. It highlights the challenge of applying traditional criminal mens rea concepts like 'willfulness' to complex technological statutes like the DMCA, where the boundary between legal and illegal activity can be unclear even to experts. The decision shows a court's reluctance to overturn a jury verdict for instructional error unless the instructions as a whole were confusing, misleading, and prejudicial, while the dissent argues for a more cautious approach where the underlying statute is itself ambiguous.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Reichert