Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed conspiracy convictions of members and a former member of the African People’s Socialist Party for conspiring to act as agents of a foreign government without notifying the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. §§ 951(a) and 371. The court held that the statutes were constitutional as applied, sufficient evidence supported the convictions, the district court properly handled the requested jury instructions and evidentiary issues, and the prosecution did not commit misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 951 and 371, as applied to the defendants' expressive and political activities, violated the First Amendment.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to violate § 951(a).
- Whether the government was required to prove that the defendants knew of § 951's notification requirement.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting communications between Ionov and Russian Federal Security Service officers under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
- Whether the district court erred by refusing the defendants' requested jury instructions.
- Whether prosecutorial questions concerning a proposed doxing website constituted misconduct warranting a new trial.
Holdings
- As applied to the defendants, §§ 951 and 371 are content-neutral regulations of conduct and expressive activity that satisfy intermediate scrutiny and do not violate the First Amendment.
- Sufficient evidence supported the convictions because a reasonable jury could find an agreement to pursue the unlawful objective of violating § 951, knowing and voluntary participation, and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- A conspiracy to violate § 951 does not require proof that the defendants knew of § 951's notification requirement.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting communications between Ionov and Russian Federal Security Service officers under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing the requested instructions concerning the elements of the § 951 object offense and evidence relating to Romain's alleged withdrawal.
- The prosecution's questions concerning a proposed doxing website were not improper or prejudicial and did not warrant a new trial.
Key quotations
“Under intermediate scrutiny, we “will sustain a content-neutral law if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.”” (13)
“To prove a conspiracy, the government must present evidence of “an agreement among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective,” “knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement,” and “an overt act by a conspirator in furtherance of the agreement.”” (17)
“Section 371 “does not impose its [willfulness] scienter requirement upon the general intent offense that is the object of the conspiracy.”” (19)
Factual background
Members and former members of the African People's Socialist Party developed a relationship with Aleksandr Ionov, who directed a Russian-backed organization and acted at the direction of Russian Federal Security Service officers. Ionov funded travel and Party events, requested political statements and demonstrations, and directed Party members in activities including a United Nations petition, an encampment tour, pro-Russian publications, and protests at Meta facilities. The defendants did not notify the Attorney General before undertaking those activities, and a jury convicted them of conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 951(a).
Procedural history
A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging several defendants with violating § 951(a) and conspiring to violate that provision. The district court denied motions challenging § 951 on First Amendment grounds, denied a hearsay-based motion to exclude communications, denied motions for acquittal and requested jury instructions, and allowed the case to go to the jury. The jury acquitted the defendants of substantive § 951 violations but convicted them of conspiracy; the district court imposed probationary sentences. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.