US v. Walter Lachman

Filing 920080326

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'During the relevant time period, the governing statute and\
regulations were 50 U.S.C. app. § 2403(a) (2000) (requiring\
exporters to obtain a "validated license" before exporting\
commodities listed in Department of Commerce regulations) and 15\
C.F.R. § 399.1, Supp. 1 (Commodity Control List), Export Control\
Classification Number ("ECCN") 1312A (1988) (listing HIPs\
"possessing a chamber cavity with an inside diameter of . . . 5\
inches . . . or more" and "all specially designed . . . components,\
accessories and controls therefor"). \
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The government consented to the willfulness element,\
seemingly in light of the district court\'s concern about the\
possible vagueness of the regulations. It now questions whether\
that concession was proper--the statute provides different\
penalties for knowing and willful violations, 50 U.S.C. app. §\
2410(a), (b), and the indictment charged only knowing violations--but we need not revisit the instruction issue here.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence for defendants is a\
note from a 1975 COCOM meeting discussing the term "specially\
designed" as it was used in the regulation of components for gas\
turbine blades and jet engines. COCOM was the Coordinating\
Committee on Multinational Export Control based in Paris. The note\
stated that "[w]hat was meant by \'specially designed\' was an\
equipment used solely for a particular purpose . . . ."\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'United States v. Willie, 941 F.2d 1384, 1393 (10th Cir. 1991)\
(requiring that proponent of good-faith defense "mak[e] a proffer\
of great specificity regarding the type of belief he seeks to\
prove"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1106 (1992); Lussier, 929 F.2d at\
31 (evidence properly excluded where no connection between\
proffered evidence and defendant\'s subjective belief).\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'Defendants obtained before trial an affidavit from a former\
Commerce Department export control specialist stating that in his\
experience "specially designed" meant "exclusively designed for a\
controlled product," that while working at Commerce he had provided\
that definition to numerous exporters, that several Bureau of\
Export Administration engineers with whom he has spoken--and whom\
he named in his affidavit--shared this definition, and that he\
disagreed with the definition put forth by two Commerce officials\
on behalf of the government.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'In Foster, 469 F.2d at 5, this court held that where a\
district court fails properly to inquire, the burden is on the\
government to prove the absence of such a conflict. More recently,\
in Nelson-Rodriguez, 319 F.3d at 42, we reserved judgment as to\
whether Foster\'s burden shifting approach was overturned by Mickens\
v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 173-74 (2002). However this may be, a\
defendant raising a conflict claim must put forth a colorable\
theory of how he was prejudiced by joint representation before the\
government might be expected to respond to it.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "