United States v. Eugene Ray Clegg

dissenting.

I dissent from the majority’s holding that Clegg is entitled to assert a mistake of law defense to the charges of exporting firearms without a license. Generally, ignorance of the law or a mistake as to the law’s requirements cannot be a defense in a criminal prosecution. See United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 563 , 91 S.Ct. 1697, 1700 , 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971). An exception has been created to provide for the legitimate reliance on an official interpretation of law. See, e.g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 571 , 85 S.Ct. 476, 484 , 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965) (due process prevents conviction of individual advised by police chief to protest across the street to avoid prosecution under statute prohibiting demonstrations “near” the courthouse); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 425-26 , 79 S.Ct. 1257, 1259-60 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1959) (convictions violate due process where a state investigating commission assured witnesses they could invoke their privilege against self-incrimination but where court later denied them the privilege); United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir.1987) (due process prohibits defendant’s conviction for…

Eugene Ray Clegg is charged with exporting firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(1) (1982) and 22 U.S.C. § 2778 (b)(2), (c) (1982). During pretrial proceedings, Clegg requested the government to produce documents that allegedly contained information of his activities. The government opposed the motion, asserting that the information sought was not material to any valid defense and that such documents would likely be subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C.App. Ill, §§ 1-16 (1982). The government submitted classified and unclassified documents to the district court for in camera inspection to establish that the documents were not material to a defense. The district court ruled the classified documents were material and discoverable and that proposed alternative materials were deficient and unacceptable. We affirmed the district court’s ruling. United States v. Clegg, 740 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir.1984).

On remand, Clegg gave notice pursuant to section 5 of CIPA of his intention to disclose at trial certain classified information. The government sought a pretrial determination of the “use, relevancy, or admissibility” of the proffered evidence. 18…

846 F.2d 1221 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene Ray CLEGG, Defendant-Appellee. No. 86-3227. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued July 29, 1987. Submitted Aug. 5, 1987. Decided May 18, 1988. Jerald E. Olson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Criminal Div., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant. Thomas W. Hillier, II, Federal Public Defender, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Before SKOPIL, NELSON and KOZINSKI, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Eugene Ray Clegg is charged with exporting firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (a)(1) (1982) and 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2778 (b)(2), (c) (1982). During pretrial proceedings, Clegg requested the government to produce documents that allegedly contained information of his activities. The government opposed the motion, asserting that the information sought was not material to any valid defense and that such documents would likely be subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. App. III, Secs. 1-16 (1982). The government submitted classified and unclassified documents to the district court for in camera inspection to establish that the documents were not material to a defense. The district…