Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 1 Nos. 14-5220, 14-5221, 14-5222 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL WALLI, et al. Defendants-Appellants. ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville, Case No. 3:12-cr-00107-1, The Honorable John G. Heyburn II ______________ OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS MICHAEL WALLI, SISTER MEGAN RICE, AND GREG BOERTJE-OBED _______________ MARC R. SHAPIRO THOMAS S. MCCONVILLE ORRICK, HERRINGTON ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street 2050 MAIN STREET New York, NY 10019 SUITE 1100 (212) 506-5000 IRVINE, CA 92614-8255 (949) 567-6700 Counsel for Defendants-Appellants (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover) Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 2 ANDREW S. ONG JUDY KWAN ORRICK, HERRINGTON ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 MARSH ROAD 777 South Figueroa Street MENLO PARK, CA 94025-1015 Suite 3200 (650) 614-7400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 (213) 629-2020 ANNE ELKINS MURRAY ORRICK, HERRINGTON WILLIAM PATRICK QUIGLEY & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7500 Dominican Street 1152 15TH ST NW New Orleans, LA 70118 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (504) 710-3074 (202) 339-8400 ANNA LISE LELLELID-DOUFFET 84607 Camus Lane Covington, LA 70435 (305) 721-7777 Counsel for Defendants-Appellants Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .........................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .............................................................................5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................................6 Y-12 National Security Complex...................................................................6 The Defendants...............................................................................................7 Events of July 28, 2012 ................................................................................10 Aftermath of the Security Breach.................................................................13 The Charges and Trial ..................................................................................15 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..............................................................................19 ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................22 I. THE GOVERNMENT’S ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF “THE NATIONAL DEFENSE” ALLOWED IT TO SECURE A CONVICTION WITHOUT PROVING EACH ELEMENT OF 18 U.S.C. § 2155(A) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.....................22 A. The Government’s Conflation of “The National Defense” and “National Defense Premises” Is Contrary to the Plain Language of the Statute and Applicable Case Law ............................................25 B. United States v. Platte Does Not Supply a Basis for Adopting the Government’s Otherwise Unprecedented Theory........................27 C. Application of the Government’s Theory Would Render the Statute Unconstitutionally Vague As-Applied...................................32 D. The Government’s Conflation of “The National Defense” With “National Defense Premises” Was Highly Prejudicial ......................37 II. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PUT FORTH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS POSSESSED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO INJURE, INTERFERE WITH, OR OBSTRUCT THE NATIONAL DEFENSE...............................................................................39 -i- Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page III. THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT BY INVOKING SEPTEMBER 11 DURING THE COURSE OF A TRIAL CONCERNING ALLEGED THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.............................................................................46 A. The Prosecutor’s Invocation of September 11 Was Improper...........49 B. The Prosecutor’s Invocation of September 11 Was Flagrant and Therefore Constitutes Reversible Error .............................................52 C. Even If The Prosecutor’s Invocation of September 11 Was Non-Flagrant, It Still Constitutes Reversible Error ...........................56 IV. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS.........................57 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................60 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE......................................................................61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................................62 DESIGNATION OF RELEVANT DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENTS ...Add. A1 STATUTORY ADDENDUM ...................................................................... Add. B1 -ii- Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) FEDERAL CASES Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)............................................................................................25 Bates v. Bell, 402 F.3d 635 (6th Cir. 2005) ..............................................................................49 Belle Maer Harbor v. Charter Township of Harrison, 170 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................32 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)..............................................................................................48 Bouie v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964)............................................................................................32 Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990)............................................................................................39 Boyle v. Million, 201 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................54 Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................51 Chrysler Corp. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 436 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................25 Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)............................................................................................35 Girts v. Yanai, 501 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2007) ..............................................................................52 Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941)..................................................................................33, 34, 35 -iii- Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 6 Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., Local 737 v. Auto Glass Employees Fed. Credit Union, 72 F.3d 1243 (6th Cir. 1996) ..............................................................................36 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)............................................................................................40 James v. McCall, 09-cv-09-2674, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88477 (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 2010)..............53 Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951)............................................................................................35 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)......................................................................................32, 36 Lent v. Wells, 861 F.2d 972 (6th Cir. 1988) ..............................................................................39 Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000)......................................................................................58, 59 Prewett v. Weems, 749 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................35 United States v. Achtenberg, 459 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1972) ................................................................................29 United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2009) ..............................................................................41 United States v. Banks, 7 M.J. 501 (July 26, 1978)..................................................................................45 United States v. Brock, 501 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2007) ..............................................................................37 United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2010) .........................................................................52, 53 United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380 (6th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................passim -iv- Case: 14-5220 Document: 36 Filed: 08/04/2014 Page: 7 United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................38, 52 United States v. Caseer, 399 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2005) ..............................................................................32 United States v. Dotson, 715 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................58 United States v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................40 United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................56 United States v. Galloway, 316 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................52