United States v. Gray, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Gray, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/35

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1909

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

NANCY GRAY,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Li pez, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

I nga L. Par sons, f or appel l ant .Kel l y Begg Lawr ence, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Mar ch 13, 2015


2/35

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Wor ds ar e sl i pper y t hi ngs. Take

"mal i ce, " i t s l egal def i ni t i ons al one can encompass: t he i nt ent t o

commi t a wr ongf ul act , r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he l aw, i l l wi l l ,

wi ckedness of hear t , and t he i nt ent t o ki l l . See Bl ack' s Law

Di ct i onar y 968- 69 ( 7t h ed. 1999) . But can mal i ce' s f i f t y shades of

meani ng i ncl ude " i mpr oper mot i ve?" For mer f l i ght at t endant Nancy

Gr ay, convi ct ed of pr ovi di ng f al se i nf or mat i on r egar di ng a bomb

t hr eat on an ai r pl ane, seeks t o convi nce us t hat she was deni ed a

f undament al l y f ai r t r i al when her j ur y was i nst r uct ed t hat mal i ce

meant "evi l pur pose or i mpr oper mot i ve. " Because we f i nd t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s def i ni t i on j ust won' t f l y, we vacat e Gr ay' s

convi ct i on and r emand t hi s case f or a new t r i al .

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Bomb on Board

By Sept ember of 2009, Nancy Gr ay had been an Amer i can

Ai r l i nes f l i ght at t endant f or over t en year s. On Sept ember 30, she

was schedul ed t o wor k Fl i ght 1318 f r om Bost on t o Mi ami . That

af t er noon, Gr ay and t he rest of t he f l i ght cr ew boar ded and began

t hei r pr e- f l i ght saf et y checks as t he cabi n ser vi ce cr ew cl eaned

t he ai r cr af t .

Cabi n servi ce cr ew member J ohn Mar i no worked hi s way f r om

t he back of t he pl ane t o t he f r ont , cl eani ng f i r st t he r ear

l avat or i es, t hen t he mi ddl e l av bef or e f i ni shi ng wi t h t he f i r st

-2-


3/35

cl ass l av. Thi s t ask i ncl uded r est ocki ng t he di spenser s wi t h paper

t owel s, t i ssues, and t oi l et paper . To r est ock t he paper t owel s,

Mar i no had t o unl atch and open a smal l door t o access t he st orage

area behi nd t he t owel di spenser . When he opened t hat door i n t he

mi ddl e l av on Fl i ght 1318, Mar i no di d not see anythi ng wr i t t en on

t he i nsi de of t he door . Whi l e Mar i no was f i ni shi ng up i n t he f i r st

cl ass cabi n, he saw a f emal e f l i ght at t endant ( Gr ay) ent er t he

mi ddl e l av, and come out agai n.

Gr ay then hur r i ed over t o t he l ead f l i ght at t endant and

t ol d hi m t hat she had f ound a not e i n t he mi ddl e l av. Toget her

t hey went back t o t he l av, wher e t he l ead f l i ght at t endant saw,

wr i t t en on the i nsi de of t he st orage compar t ment door , t he wor ds

"Bomb on Boar d! BOS- MI A. " They t hen r ushed t o t he cockpi t t o

not i f y t he capt ai n. Pre- boar di ng had begun, and by t he t i me t hey

r et ur ned t o the mi ddl e l av wi t h t he capt ai n, i t was occupi ed by a

passenger . Once he coul d ent er t he l av, t he capt ai n saw t he

message and deci ded t o st op boar di ng and not i f y t he aut hor i t i es.

The ai r cr af t was evacuat ed and t owed t o a r emot e ar ea of

Logan Ai r por t wher e, over a per i od of sever al hour s, i t was

sear ched. No bomb was f ound.

B. The Confession

On December 15, 2009, Gr ay, whose j ob was suspended at

t he t i me, cont act ed FBI Speci al Agent J oseph DeVuono at hi s of f i ce

at O' Har e I nt er nat i onal Ai r por t t o r equest an i nt er vi ew t o "cl ear

-3-


4/35

her name. " They ar r anged t o meet at DeVuono' s of f i ce on t he

morni ng of December 23. Gr ay arr i ved at ar ound 9: 30 a. m. , car r yi ng

"a ver y l ar ge si zed sof t dr i nk. " DeVuono of f er ed her a cup of

cof f ee, whi ch she decl i ned, but at her r equest , he bought her a

chocol ate bar . Gr ay met wi t h DeVuono and Speci al Agent Davi d Mer t z

f or an hour and a hal f bef or e t aki ng a br eak. At t he br eak, Gr ay

- - who had been si ppi ng t he soda and eat i ng t he candy bar dur i ng

t he i nt er vi ew - - sought and r ecei ved per mi ssi on t o t est her bl ood

sugar l evel . 1 Gr ay showed t he agent s t hat her bl ood sugar was 106,

and i ndi cated t hat i t was a good number and t hat she f el t f i ne.

Gr ay next met wi t h Speci al Agent J ay Cherr y, who

i nt er vi ewed her f or appr oxi mat el y t wo hour s. 2 DeVuono t hen

r ej oi ned Gr ay and conduct ed a f i nal hour and a hal f i nt er vi ew,

dur i ng whi ch she wr ot e and si gned t he f ol l owi ng conf essi on:

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on and wi t h deepr egr et and r emor se I t ake bl ame f or wr i t i ng ont he door on Sept 30, 2009 Bost on t o Mi ami .The codes BOS- MI A wer e al r eady on t he door . Idi d not have anyt hi ng to do wi t h any ot hert hr eat s made, ever t o Amer i can Ai r l i nes.Af t er I di d i t I r eal i zed what I had done. Ihave been under ext r eme, st r essf ul personalt hi ngs i n my l i f e. Af t er t he gr ound wor kercal l ed me a " f ucki ng bi t ch" I snapped f or amoment . I car e deepl y about AA, cr ew & t he

1Ther e i s some di sput e over t he quest i on of whet her Gr ay hadbeen di agnosed wi t h di abetes. Def ense counsel agr eed t hat shewoul d not use t he wor d "di abet es" at t r i al , al t hough t he i ssue of"bl ood sugar l evel s" di d come bef or e t he j ur y.

2Al t hough not ment i oned at t r i al , dur i ng t hi s i nt er vi ew Gr ayt ook a l i e det ect or t est , whi ch was admi ni st er ed by Cher r y.

-4-


5/35

passenger s. I have l oved my j ob & st i l l do.I wi l l never do i t agai n. To cl ar i f y what Iwr ote "Bomb on boar d! " I t was wr ong. I ' mt r ul y sorr y. I never want a 9- 11 t o happenagai n and I di d i t mor e t o get t he gr oundwor ker s i n t r oubl e t han cause what I di d.

She l ef t t he FBI of f i ce at 3: 45 p. m. , and accor di ng t o DeVuono, she

di d not appear i mpai r ed or di sor i ent ed. Accor di ng t o her t hen-

husband, Scot Br ewer , when Gr ay r et urned home around 5: 30 p. m. ,

"she was wal ki ng f unny, t al ki ng i n sl ur r ed speech" and aski ng t o

see her mother , who had di ed t en years ear l i er . Br ewer gave her

sweet t ea and a PopTar t and "she sl owl y st ar t ed t o come back

ar ound. "

C. The Trial

On August 5, 2010, a gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Gr ay f or gi vi ng

f al se i nf or mat i on r egar di ng a bomb t hr eat on an ai r pl ane i n

vi ol at i on of 49 U. S. C. 46507( 1) . 3 Gr ay pl ed not gui l t y. 4

Dur i ng t he f our - day t r i al t hat ensued, t he gover nment

i nt r oduced Gr ay' s si gned conf essi on i nt o evi dence, and el i ci t ed

t est i mony f r omt he FBI Speci al Agent s, Amer i can Ai r l i nes empl oyees,

349 U. S. C. 46507 pr ovi des f or a t er m of i mpr i sonment of notmor e t han f i ve year s i f an i ndi vi dual "knowi ng t he i nf or mat i on t obe f al se, wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d f ort he saf et y of human l i f e, gi ves, or causes t o be gi ven, under

ci r cumst ances i n whi ch t he i nf ormat i on r easonabl y may be bel i eved,f al se i nf or mat i on about " a bomb t hr eat on an ai r pl ane.

4Gr ay f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess her conf essi on, and at t achedan af f i davi t whi ch al l eged t hat she had been coer ced i nt o si gni nga f al se conf essi on. The government opposed t he mot i on, and on t hef i r st day of her j ur y t r i al , Gr ay wi t hdr ew i t .

-5-


6/35

and sever al cr ew member s of Fl i ght 1318 about t he bomb hoax

i nci dent and subsequent i nvest i gat i on. Fl i ght At t endant St acy Hyde

t est i f i ed t o a possi bl e mot i ve, sayi ng t hat Gr ay was "ver y upset

wi t h" Amer i can Ai r l i nes' s handl i ng of a medi cal i ssue she' d had.

On di r ect exami nat i on, Hyde recal l ed t hat , pr evi ous t o the day of

t he f l i ght , Gr ay had t ol d her " t hat she was goi ng t o, ' Get back at

t hem. ' " Dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on, Hyde was shown t he st atement she

made t o a st at e pol i ce of f i cer i mmedi at el y f ol l owi ng t he bomb hoax.

At t hat t i me, she di d not r epor t t hat Gr ay sai d she' d "get back at "

Amer i can Ai r l i nes. Rat her , she quot ed Gr ay as sayi ng "They' l l

never be abl e t o f i r e me, I ' l l have t o qui t . "

Gr ay' s ex- husband, Dr . Br ewer , t est i f i ed that Gr ay seemed

i ncoher ent and di sor i ent ed when he spoke t o her af t er she l ef t her

FBI i nt er vi ew. 5 Gr ay di d not t ake t he st and.

D. The Jury Instructions

Bot h Gr ay and t he government submi t t ed proposed j ury

i nst r uct i ons. Because t he st at ut e she was accused of vi ol at i ng

r equi r es t he government t o pr ove that Gr ay wr ote t he thr eat

"knowi ng t he i nf or mat i on t o be f al se, wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y or

5Gr ay sought t o of f er her ex- husband' s t est i mony that het est ed her bl ood sugar l evel when she r etur ned home f r om t he FBI

i nt ervi ew and saw t hat t he moni t or showed a readi ng of 52, a l evelhe f el t was danger ousl y l ow. Gr ay ar gues that t he di st r i ct cour ter r ed i n r ul i ng t hat Dr . Br ewer ( a dent i st ) was not an exper t andcoul d not t est i f y about t est i ng Gr ay' s bl ood sugar , and t hesi gni f i cance of t he l evel he r ead. However , because we ar evacat i ng her convi ct i on on other gr ounds, we need not addr ess t hatargument .

-6-


7/35

wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he saf et y of human l i f e, " bot h par t i es

of f er ed i nst r uct i ons def i ni ng "mal i ci ousl y. " 49 U. S. C. 46507( 1) .

Ci t i ng Sand' s Moder n Feder al J ur y I nst r uct i ons - Cr i mi nal 13. 04,

I nst r uct i on 13- 24, Gr ay suggest ed t he def i ni t i on: "[ t ] o act

mal i ci ousl y means t o do somet hi ng wi t h an evi l pur pose or mot i ve. "

Ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gul l et t , 75 F. 3d 941, 947 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ,

t he gover nment of f er ed " [ t ] o act mal i ci ousl y means t o ' act [ ]

i nt ent i onal l y or wi t h wi l l f ul di sregar d of t he l i kel i hood t hat

damage or i nj ur y woul d r esul t . ' "

The di st r i ct cour t conduct ed a char gi ng conf er ence,

dur i ng whi ch t he gover nment poi nt ed out t hat t hi s ci r cui t has never

def i ned mal i ce i n t he cont ext of 46507. The government argued

t hat absent any l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, t he common- l aw def i ni t i on t he

gover nment had of f er ed was t he bet t er st andar d. Never t hel ess, t he

cour t det er mi ned t hat i t woul d "shar pen" t he i nst r uct i on by

i ncl udi ng t he def i ni t i on of mal i ce of f er ed by t he def ense. The

cour t t hen i nst r uct ed t he j ur y, sayi ng:

And then we t ur n to t he quest i on of what wecal l "mal i ce, " " wi l l f ul or mal i ci ous conduct. "To act mal i ci ousl y i n t hi s cont ext means t o dosomet hi ng wi t h an evi l pur pose or mot i ve. I tmeans t o do somet hi ng t hat i s knowi ngl y wr ong,and her e suggest i ons have been made t hat Ms.Gr ay had some mal i ce t oward Amer i can Ai r l i nes.

But t he [ g] overnment has t o pr ove that and youhave t o eval uat e i t . ( emphasi s added) .At t he concl usi on of j ur y i nst r uct i on, t he cour t hel d a

si debar conf er ence and t he gover nment obj ect ed t o t he def i ni t i on of

-7-


8/35

mal i ce, ar gui ng t hat t he j ur y di dn' t need t o f i nd mot i ve at al l ,

t hat evi l i nt ent was suf f i ci ent . The cour t not ed t hat " evi l

pur pose or mot i ve" was phr ased i n t he di sj unct i ve, and added " I

under st and t he obj ect i on. I t hi nk I am goi ng t o l eave i t wher e i t

i s. " However , af t er si debar , t he cour t agai n addr essed mal i ce,

t el l i ng t he j ur y "what ' mal i ce' means i s t o act wi t h an evi l

pur pose or an i mpr oper mot i ve, t hat i s ' or , ' and i t i s up t o you t o

deci de whet her or not t he ci r cumst ances under t hese condi t i ons, i f

you f i nd t hem, const i t ut e ei t her act i ng wi t h an evi l pur pose or

act i ng wi t h an i mpr oper mot i ve. " ( emphasi s added) . Def ense counsel

asked f or a si debar and poi nt ed out t hat " I t hi nk under [ Sand' s

Moder n Feder al J ur y I nst r uct i on] i t ' s ' evi l pur pose or evi l

mot i ve. ' ' I mpr oper pur pose [ si c] ' I t hi nk l essens t he bur den. "

The cour t r epl i ed "No, i t doesn' t , " and t he j ury was sent t o

del i ber at e.

An hour and t went y mi nut es l at er , t he j ur y sent a not e

back wi t h a quest i on: "What ar e t he 4 cr i t er i a . . . t o consi der

f or a ver di ct ( e. g. mal i ce) ?" The cour t not ed t o t he at t or neys

t hat def ense counsel was concer ned about t he use of t he word

" i mpr oper " and asked counsel "what , assumi ng t hat I am goi ng t o

r espond more speci f i cal l y about ' mal i ce, ' do you want ?" Def ense

counsel cont i nued t o ar gue f or "evi l pur pose or mot i ve. " The cour t

of f er ed i t s own def i ni t i on and, af t er some di scussi on, def ense

-8-


9/35

counsel asked f or a br i ef br eak t o r evi ew t he r el evant cases. 6 The

cour t agr eed, and suggest ed t hat , so t he j ur y coul d keep wor ki ng,

i t woul d send back j ust t he f our el ement s under t he st atut e, and

woul d wai t t o "see i f t hey ask mor e about ' mal i ci ousl y. ' " Bot h

par t i es agr eed. Twent y- f i ve mi nut es l at er , t he j ur y r et ur ned, not

wi t h a quest i on, but wi t h a ver di ct - - gui l t y. Gr ay was sent enced

t o twent y- seven mont hs i n pr i son, wi t h t hr ee year s of super vi sed

r el ease. Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

DISCUSSION

Gr ay makes sever al argument s on appeal , but one we f i nd

di sposi t i ve. 7 She ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by

i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y t hat "mal i ce coul d be an i mpr oper pur pose,

t hus reduci ng t he gover nment ' s bur den of pr oof . " The gover nment

count ers t hat Gr ay' s argument "shoul d be deemed wai ved, " and that

i n any event , t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i on was cor r ect .

6The cour t of f er ed: "mal i ce i n i t s l egal sense char act er i zesal l act s done wi t h an evi l di sposi t i on, a wr ong and unl awf ul mot i veand pur pose, t he wi l l f ul doi ng of an i nj ur i ous act wi t hout l awf ulexcuse. " Thi s def i ni t i on was based on t hat of Chi ef J ust i ce Shawi n Commonweal t h v. Yor k, 9 Met . 93, 105 (Mass. 1845) . Thegover nment was "cont ent " wi t h t hat def i ni t i on, but suggest ed t hatno addi t i onal def i ni t i on of mal i ce needed t o be suppl i ed.

7I n addi t i on t o chal l engi ng t he cour t ' s deci si on t o bar exper tt est i mony by Br ewer , Gr ay ar gues t hat t he pr osecut or per mi t t edf al se t est i mony when t wo eye wi t nesses cont r adi ct ed t hei r ear l i erst at ement s. She f ur t her asser t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed byadvi si ng t he j ur y t hat she had a r i ght agai nst sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on,and by i mposi ng a two- poi nt sent enci ng enhancement f or obst r uct i onof j ust i ce. As previ ousl y st at ed, we do not r each t hese ar gument s.

-9-


10/35

A. Waiver

The gover nment asser t s t hat Gr ay of f er s us onl y a

"skel et al , per f unct or y ar gument " about t he def i ni t i on of mal i ce.

We have of t en st ated t hat "we deemwai ved cl ai ms not made or cl ai ms

adver t ed t o i n a cur sor y f ashi on, unaccompani ed by devel oped

ar gument . " Rodr i guez v. Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168,

175 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . We r equi r e par t i es t o "spel l out t hei r i ssues

cl ear l y, hi ghl i ght i ng t he r el evant f act s and anal yzi ng on- poi nt

aut hor i t y. " I d. Speci f i cal l y, par t i es "must gi ve us t he ' r aw

mat er i al s' . . . so t hat we can do our wor k. " I d.

Her e, Gr ay of f er ed a shor t but on- poi nt ar gument i n her

openi ng br i ef , ci t i ng t o t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Hassouneh, 199 F. 3d 175, 182 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) , f or t he

pr oposi t i on t hat "evi l pur pose or mot i ve . . . mor e accur at el y

r ef l ect s t he pr oper l egal st andar d necessary to convi ct a per son of

act i ng ' mal i ci ousl y' " under t he anal ogous Bomb Hoax Act , 18 U. S. C.

35. She out l i ned f or us t he sequence of event s dur i ng j ur y

i nst r uct i on, and pr ovi ded a t r anscr i pt of t he pr oceedi ng. She

f ur t her devel oped her ar gument i n her r epl y br i ef , and dur i ng or al

ar gument , she f ocused ent i r el y on t hi s si ngl e i ssue. Ther ef or e, we

f i nd t he ar gument has been suf f i ci ent l y devel oped and i s not

wai ved.

-10-


11/35

B. Jury Instruction

We pr oceed, t hen, t o t he quest i on of whet her t he cour t ' s

second at t empt at def i ni ng mal i ce - - " t o act wi t h an evi l pur pose

or i mpr oper mot i ve" - - was er r or . "Pr eserved cl ai ms of

i nst r uct i onal er r or ar e assessed on appeal under a bi f ur cat ed

f r amewor k. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sasso, 695 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) . " [ W] e consi der de novo whether an i nst r uct i on embodi ed an

er r or of l aw, but we r evi ew f or abuse of di scr et i on whet her t he

i nst r uct i ons adequat el y expl ai ned t he l aw or whet her t hey tended t o

conf use or mi sl ead t he j ur y on t he cont r ol l i ng i ssues. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal

quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Gr ay' s cl ai mof i nst r uct i onal er r or i nvol ves

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s amended def i ni t i on of t he mal i ce el ement i n 18

U. S. C. 46507( 1) , engender i ng de novo r evi ew. See Sasso, 695 F. 3d

at 29.

The gover nment asser t s t hat , wher e a st at ute does not

def i ne a common- l aw t erml i ke mal i ce, cour t s presume t hat Congr ess

adopt ed t he common- l aw def i ni t i on of t hat t er m. See Mor i sset t e v.

Uni t ed St ates, 342 U. S. 246, 263 ( 1952) . The government had

of f er ed such a common- l aw def i ni t i on i n i t s pr oposed j ur y

i nst r ucti on: t o "act i nt ent i onal l y or wi t h wi l l f ul di sregar d of t he

l i kel i hood t hat damage or i nj ur y woul d r esul t ; " and now ar gues t hat

t he amended i nst r uct i on gi ven by t he di st r i ct cour t i s t he

subst ant i ve equi val ent of t hat def i ni t i on. Gr ay, on t he ot her

-11-


12/35

hand, pr oposed t he def i ni t i on f ound i n Sand' s Moder n Feder al J ur y

I nst r uct i ons f or vi ol at i ons of bot h 46507( 1) and t he anal ogous

Bomb Hoax Act , 18 U. S. C. 35( b) whi ch st ates, "To act

' mal i ci ousl y' means t o do somet hi ng wi t h an evi l pur pose or

mot i ve. " Sand' s Moder n Feder al J ur y I nst r uct i ons- Cr i mi nal 13. 04,

I nst r uct i on 13- 24. I n or der t o det er mi ne whi ch def i ni t i on of

mal i ce t o adopt t o best r ef l ect Congr essi onal i nt ent , we must

anal yze t he r easoni ng behi nd t he conf l i ct i ng def i ni t i ons.

" [ W] her e a f eder al cr i mi nal st at ut e uses a common- l aw

t er m of est abl i shed meani ng wi t hout ot her wi se def i ni ng i t , t he

gener al pr act i ce i s t o gi ve t hat t er m i t s common- l aw meani ng. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Bayes, 210 F. 3d 64, 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Tur l ey, 352 U. S. 407, 411 ( 1957) ) . Thi s i s the

appr oach t aken by t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t i n Uni t ed St at es v. Sweet , 985

F. 2d 443, 445 ( 8t h Ci r . 1993) . I n a br i ef opi ni on i nvol vi ng t he

anal ogous 35( b) char ge, 8 t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t uphel d a di st r i ct

cour t ' s i nst r ucti on def i ni ng "mal i ci ousl y" as acti ng "i nt ent i onal l y

or wi t h wi l l f ul di sr egar d of t he l i kel i hood t hat damage or i nj ur y

wi l l resul t . " I d. I n doi ng so, i t decl i ned wi t h l i t t l e

expl anat i on t he def endant ' s pr oposal t hat t he def i ni t i on shoul d

i ncl ude t he wor ds "evi l pur pose or mot i ve. " I d.

8We wi l l expl or e t he si mi l ar i t i es bet ween t hese t wo st at ut esshor t l y.

-12-


13/35

However , we wi l l not presume a common- l aw meani ng i f

t her e ar e "gr ounds f or i nf er r i ng any af f i r mat i ve i nst r uct i on f r om

Congr ess" to def i ne i t ot her wi se. Mor i sset t e, 342 U. S. at 273.

Thi s i s t he t ack f ol l owed by t he Four t h Ci r cui t i n a case al so

i nvol vi ng t he r el at ed st at ut e, t he Bomb Hoax Act . The Four t h

Ci r cui t f ound t hat an i nst r uct i on i ncl udi ng t he "evi l pur pose or

mot i ve" component "mor e accur at el y r ef l ect s t he pr oper l egal

st andar d necessar y t o convi ct a per son of act i ng ' mal i ci ousl y'

under 35( b) . " Hassouneh, 199 F. 3d at 182. I n r eachi ng t hi s

concl usi on, t he cour t exami ned t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of t he Bomb

Hoax Act t o di vi ne Congr ess' s i nt ent . I d. at 179- 80. Because t he

st at ut e at i ssue her e i s ver y si mi l ar t o 35, i t i s wor t h

r evi ewi ng t hat hi st or y.

Pr i or t o i t s amendment i n 1961, 18 U. S. C. 35 was a

mi sdemeanor st at ut e t hat puni shed those who wi l l f ul l y and knowi ngl y

i mpar t ed f al se i nf or mat i on concer ni ng a bomb t hr eat . I d. at 179.

I n 1961, t he Act was amended t o del et e the wor d "wi l l f ul l y" and

i ncor por ate t he r emai ni ng l anguage i nt o t he new subsect i on ( a) .

I d. at 180. At t he same t i me, subsect i on ( b) was added t o make i t

a f el ony to convey f al se i nf or mat i on about a bomb t hr eat "wi l l f ul l y

and mal i ci ousl y or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he saf et y of human

l i f e. " I d. at 180 ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 35( b) ) .

The Hassouneh cour t noted t hat t he amended st at ute

i ndi cat ed "a congr essi onal i nt ent t o subj ect anyone who pr ovi des

-13-


14/35

f al se i nf or mat i on of t he t ype pr oscr i bed i n t he st at ut e t o

puni shment , but t o puni sh those who make such st at ement s ' wi l l f ul l y

and mal i ci ousl y, or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he saf et y of human

l i f e' mor e sever el y. " I d. at 180. As f ur t her evi dence of t hi s

i nt ent , t he cour t ci t ed an Execut i ve Communi cat i on f r omt he Uni t ed

St ates At t orney General t o the Speaker of t he House of

Repr esent at i ves, made at t he t i me the st at ut e was amended t o

pr ovi de f or t he separ at e penal t i es, whi ch expl ai ned t hat t he

ear l i er st at ut e had creat ed "j udi ci al conf usi on over t he

appl i cabi l i t y of t he st at ut e i n pr ankst er cases. " I d. ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Whi t e, 475 F. 2d 1228, 1233 n. 6 ( 4t h Ci r . 1973)

( quot i ng 1961 U. S. Code Cong. & Admi n. News, p. 3053) ) . I n

pr oposi ng t he amendment t hat cr eat ed separate penal t i es, t he

At t or ney Gener al st at ed,

I submi t t o t he Congr ess a bi l l whi ch woul dmake i t a f el ony f or one t o convey a f al ser epor t wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y, or wi t hr eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he saf et y of humanl i f e, and a mi sdemeanor t o do so wi t hknowl edge of i t s f al se char act er even t houghwi t hout mal i ce or r eckl ess di sr egar d f or humanl i f e. Such a st at ut e woul d cl ear l y show t hecongr essi onal i nt ent i on t o make i t a cr i mi nalof f ense t o gi ve f al se repor t s even wi t hout anevi l or r eckl ess mot i ve and woul d pr ovi de amore adequate penal t y f or t hose whose act i onswar r ant i t .

I d. ( emphasi s added) . I n hi s expl anat i on of t he need f or t he

amendment , t he At t orney General t hus equated t he f el ony st andard

"wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y, or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d" wi t h "evi l

-14-


15/35

or r eckl ess mot i ve. " Accor di ngl y, i n deci di ng t hat t he def endant ' s

pr of f er ed "evi l pur pose or mot i ve" i nst r uct i on mor e accur at el y

r ef l ect ed t he pr oper l egal st andar d, t he Four t h Ci r cui t f ound t hat

t her e wer e "consi der abl e gr ounds f or i nf er r i ng t hat Congr ess

i nt ended a meani ng of ' mal i ci ousl y' di f f er ent f r om t he common l aw

def i ni t i on. " I d. at 182.

Sect i on 46507 and 35 ar e very si mi l ar , as noted by Sand

when he chose t o sel ect t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s def i ni t i on of mal i ce

as mor e appr opr i at e t o vi ol at i ons of 46507( 1) . Bot h st at ut es

pr ovi de t wo separ at e penal t i es f or t hose who convey f al se

i nf or mat i on about bomb t hr eat s i n avi at i on. J ust as 35( a)

descr i bes a ci vi l penal t y and 35( b) a f el ony, 49 U. S. C.

46302( a) i s a ci vi l penal t y f or knowi ngl y pr ovi di ng f al se

i nf or mat i on about a bomb t hr eat , whi l e 46507( 1) i s a f el ony f or

pr ovi di ng t he f al se i nf or mat i on about t he t hr eat "wi l l f ul l y and

mal i ci ousl y. "

Li ke Sand, we f i nd t he Four t h Ci r cui t appr oach mor e

persuasi ve. To r epeat , "when Congr ess uses a common l aw t erm and

does not ot her wi se def i ne i t , i t i s pr esumed t hat Congr ess i nt ended

t o adopt t he common l aw def i ni t i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pat t er son,

882 F. 2d 595, 603 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) . However t hat pr esumpt i on i s

over come here when we consi der t he st at utory scheme as a whol e.

The onl y di f f er ence bet ween 46302( a) and 46507( 1) i s t he

addi t i on of t he wor ds "wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y. " I f

-15-


16/35

"mal i ci ousl y" means " i nt ent i onal l y, " as t he common l aw def i ni t i on

st at es, t hen t wo r edundanci es woul d be cr eat ed. Fi r st , as

Hassouneh expl ai ns, t here woul d be no di f f erence between t he t wo

pr ovi si ons, despi t e t hei r ver y di f f er ent penal t i es. See 199 F. 3d

at 182. Second, a r edundancy woul d r esul t bet ween "wi l l f ul l y" and

"mal i ci ousl y" i nt er nal t o 46507( 1) .

" I t i s . . . a cardi nal pr i nci pl e of s tat ut ory

const r uct i on t hat we must gi ve ef f ect , i f possi bl e, t o ever y cl ause

and wor d of a st at ut e. " Wi l l i ams v. Tayl or , 529 U. S. 362, 404

( 2000) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The di ssent f avor s a

common l aw def i ni t i on of mal i ce t hat " speci f i cal l y r equi r es

commi t t i ng t he wr ongf ul act wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on, excuse, or

mi t i gat i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ser awop, 410 F. 3d 656, 664 ( 10t h

Ci r . 2005) ( ci t i ng 50 Am. J ur . Homi ci de 2d 37 ( 1999) ) . Wer e we

t o adopt t hi s def i ni t i on, we woul d not be adequat el y gi vi ng ef f ect

t o t he di st i nct mens r ea of "wi l l f ul l y. " As t he di st r i ct cour t

expl ai ned, wi l l f ul l y means " t hat a per son act ed del i ber at el y and

i nt ent i onal l y; i t was not done i nadver t ent l y or mi st akenl y. I t was

done on pur pose as opposed t o acci dent al l y or car el essl y or

uni nt ent i onal l y. " The onl y di st i nct i on bet ween t hi s and t he

di ssent ' s def i ni t i on of mal i ce ar e t he wor ds "wi t hout

j ust i f i cat i on, excuse, or mi t i gat i on. " We do not bel i eve t hat i s

-16-


17/35

suf f i ci ent t o r ef l ect Congr ess' s i nt ent . 9 See Hassouneh, 199 F. 3d

at 181 ( not i ng t hat "mal i ci ousl y" was added t o 18 U. S. C. 35( b)

because "wi l l f ul l y" by i t sel f "does not necessar i l y embr ace any

evi l pur pose but compr ehends merel y a vol unt ary and consci ous

i mpar t i ng or conveyi ng of t he f al se i nf or mat i on wi t h whi ch t he

st at ut e deal s") ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

We bel i eve Sand' s def i ni t i on, on t he ot her hand, i s mor e

i n l i ne wi t h Congr essi onal i nt ent . The hi st or y of 46507( 1)

r eveal s t hat i t s st at ut or y pr ecur sor , 49 U. S. C. 1472( m) , was

model ed af t er 35. Uni t ed St at es v. I r vi ng, 509 F. 2d 1325, 1328-

29 ( 5t h Ci r . 1975) . The wi ser cour se t hen, gi ven how cl osel y

r el at ed t he two stat ut es are, i s t o f ol l ow Sand' s appr oach and

def i ne mal i ce i n t he cont ext of bot h 35( b) and 46507( 1) as

"evi l pur pose or mot i ve. "

9Footnote 1 of t he di ssent i mpl i es t hat "a def endant who makesa knowi ngl y f al se bomb t hr eat i n an ef f or t t o obt ai n hel p f r om l awenf or cement whi l e bei ng hel d host age" coul d be f ound gui l t y of t heci vi l penal t y ver si on of t he cr i me - - and not t he f el ony ver si on - -because he made t he t hr eat "wi l l f ul l y" but not "mal i ci ousl y. "However , Congr ess never i nt ended t o appl y t he ci vi l penal t y t oi ndi vi dual s who ar e j ust i f i ed i n maki ng f al se bomb t hr eat s.Rat her , t he ci vi l penal t y was cr eat ed t o pr osecut e "pr ankster s. "Cf . Hassouneh, 199 F. 3d at 181 ( st at i ng t hat " t he st at ut e seems t o

cont empl at e t hat many pr ankst ers whose poor l y devel oped senses ofhumor l ead them t o make st at ement s prohi bi t ed by 35 wi l l besubj ect t o t he ci vi l penal t y. ") . Mor eover , such an i ndi vi dualwoul d l i kel y be abl e t o r ai se a st r ong j ust i f i cat i on af f i r mat i vedef ense. See, e. g. , Di xon v. Uni t ed St at es, 548 U. S. 1, 8, 13- 14& n. 7 ( 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Leahy, 473 F. 3d 401, 405- 09 ( 1stCi r . 2007) .

-17-


18/35

We recogni ze t hat t her e ar e mul t i pl e common l aw

def i ni t i ons of mal i ce. 10 The di ssent f avor s a common l aw def i ni t i on

t hat i s f r equent l y used t o di st i ngui sh mansl aught er f r om mur der .

See Serawop, 410 F. 3d at 664. The Sevent h Ci r cui t , on t he other

hand, r ecent l y uphel d another common l aw def i ni t i on of

"mal i ci ousl y" as " [ acti ng] i nt ent i onal l y or wi t h del i ber at e

di sr egar d of t he l i kel i hood t hat damage or i nj ur y wi l l r esul t . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Gr ady, 746 F. 3d 846, 848 ( 7t h Ci r . 2014)

( addr essi ng t he def i ni t i on of mal i ci ousl y wi t hi n t he cont ext of t he

f eder al ar son st at ut e) . The Gr ady cour t st at ed t hat t hi s

def i ni t i on i s " i ndeed a common def i ni t i on of t he wor d, " i s f ound i n

t he Four t h, Ei ght h and El event h Ci r cui t model j ur y i nst r uct i ons,

and " i s how t he common l aw t r adi t i onal l y def i ned t he t er m. " I d. at

849. Fur t her mor e, t he Gr ady cour t expl i ci t l y r ej ect ed t he

di ssent ' s posi t i on t hat "mal i ce" must i ncl ude the phr ase "wi t hout

j ust cause or r eason. " I d. I t i s cl ear t her e i s no "one si ze f i t s

al l " common l aw def i ni t i on of mal i ce. That sai d, we f i nd "evi l

pur pose or mot i ve" t o be a cl oser f i t wi t hi n t he cont ext of

46507( 1) .

Ther e ar e a coupl e of ot her r easons t o f avor Gr ay' s

pr oposed def i ni t i on. " [ S] t at ut es whi ch r el at e t o t he same subj ect

10The di ssent suggest s t hat our deci si on i n Her nandez- Cuevasv. Tayl or , 723 F. 3d 91 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , suppor t s i t s "set t l ed"common l aw def i ni t i on of mal i ce. To t he cont r ary, Hernandez- Cuevasr ecogni zed t hat " [ c] ommon l aw mal i ce st andar ds var y by j ur i sdi ct i onand cont ext . " 723 F. 3d at 102 n. 11.

-18-


19/35

mat t er shoul d be consi der ed t oget her so t hat t hey wi l l harmoni ze

wi t h each ot her and be consi st ent wi t h t hei r gener al obj ect i ve

scope. " Rat hbun v. Aut ozone, I nc. , 361 F. 3d 62, 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We shoul d const r ue 18 U. S. C.

35( b) and 49 U. S. C. 46507( 1) i n par i mater i a because t hey

pr oscr i be t he same conduct and are ver y si mi l ar l y worded. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Cot hr an, 286 F. 3d 173, 178 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) ( st at i ng

t hat " 35( b) ' s l anguage cl osel y t r acks t hat of 49 U. S. C.

46507") .

Fi nal l y, t o t he ext ent t he def i ni t i on of mal i ce under

46507( 1) may be ambi guous, " t he rul e of l eni t y r equi r es ambi guous

cr i mi nal l aws t o be i nt er pr et ed i n f avor of t he def endant s

subj ect ed t o t hem. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os, 553 U. S. 507, 514

( 2008) ( appl yi ng t he r ul e of l eni t y t o adopt t he def endant ' s

pr oposed def i ni t i on of "pr oceeds" i n a st at ut e as "pr of i t s") .

Because Sand' s def i ni t i on r ai ses t he bar f or t he gover nment , i t

f avor s t he def endant . We hol d t hat Gr ay' s pr oposed i nst r uct i on,

f r om Sand, def i ni ng mal i ce i n t he cont ext of 46507( 1) as " t o do

somet hi ng wi t h an evi l pur pose or mot i ve, " i s t he appr opr i at e

def i ni t i on.

Havi ng det er mi ned t hat Gr ay' s prof f er ed def i ni t i on was

l egal l y cor r ect , we do not st op t her e. Had t he di st r i ct cour t

al l owed i t s or i gi nal def i ni t i on t o st and, we woul dn' t be her e. But

al as, t he cour t amended i t s def i ni t i on t o i ncl ude "or i mpr oper

-19-


20/35

mot i ve. " Because "t he di st r i ct cour t has consi der abl e di scret i on

i n how i t . . . wor ds i t s j ur y i nst r ucti ons, " Uni t ed St at es v.

Gonzal ez, 570 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , we must now determi ne

whet her t he i nst r uct i on gi ven conveyed t he cor r ect def i ni t i on of

mal i ce, or i f , as Gr ay cont ends, i t di l ut ed t he meani ng of t he

wor d. 11

The gover nment ar gues t he t hree wor ds ar e cl ose enough t o

Gr ay' s r equest ed def i ni t i on because t hey "conveyed t he same

meani ng. " Because j ury i nst r uct i ons demand somewhat great er

pr eci si on than t hat r equi r ed by hor seshoes and hand gr enades, we' l l

assess t hi s ar gument t o see i f t he cour t ' s def i ni t i on of mal i ce was

cor r ect or mer el y cl ose, but no ci gar .

The gover nment cl ai ms t hat " [ t ] he wor d ' i mproper '

i mpar t ed a sense of del i berate wr ongf ul ness above and beyond a

r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he l aw, whi ch i s pr eci sel y t he i dea

conveyed by Gr ay' s r equest ed ' evi l pur pose or mot i ve' i nst r uct i on. "

We must di sagree. The word i mpr oper car r i es several meani ngs, not

one of whi ch i s t he equal of evi l . 12 The uni ver se of t hi ngs t hat

11Al t hough t hi s i s t he f i r st t i me t he def i ni t i on of mal i ce hasbeen addr essed wi t hi n t he cont ext of 46507, our si st er ci r cui t shave addr essed i ncor r ect def i ni t i ons of mal i ce i n t he cont ext ofhomi ci de, and have gr ant ed r el i ef wher e t he def i ni t i on of f er ed by

t he cour t i mper mi ssi bl y l ower ed t he st andar d or shi f t ed t he bur denof pr oof t o t he def endant . See Cal dwel l v. Bel l , 288 F. 3d 838, 844( 6t h Ci r . 2002) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Whar t on, 433 F. 2d 451, 456 ( D. C.Ci r . 1970) .

12I mpr oper has been def i ned as " [ i ] ncor r ect ; unsui t abl e ori r r egul ar , " Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 761 ( 7t h ed. 1999) ; "not i n

-20-


21/35

are consi dered i mpr oper woul d encompass anyt hi ng f r omwear i ng a hat

i ndoor s to f i l i ng a f r i vol ous l awsui t . Evi l , on t he ot her hand, i s

more commonl y used t o descr i be somethi ng that i s moral l y

r epr ehensi bl e. I t shoul d go wi t hout sayi ng t hat t he wor ds ar e not

i nt er changeabl e.

We f aced a si mi l ar si t uat i on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Tobi n,

480 F. 3d 53, 55- 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . I n Tobi n, we addr essed a j ur y

i nst r uct i on t hat def i ned "har assment " i n t he cont ext of t el ephone

cal l s as usi ng t he phone "i n a way t hat i s not meant as a good

f ai t h ef f or t t o communi cat e . . . and i s done wi t h an unj ust i f i abl e

mot i ve. " I d. at 55. We hel d t hat "[ t ] he di st r i ct cour t ' s ' bad

f ai t h- i mpr oper mot i ve' i nst r uct i on" woul d i ncl ude t he char ged

conduct ( har assi ng phone cal l s) , but "woul d al so i ncl ude al most

anythi ng el se of whi ch t he j ur y mi ght di sappr ove. " I d. at 57. The

same danger exi st s her e. The cour t ' s def i ni t i on al l owed t he j ur y

t o convi ct Gr ay i f i t f ound t hat she was i mpr oper l y mot i vat ed by

somet hi ng i t f r owned upon. Thi s di l ut ed t he wi l l f ul and mal i ci ous

el ement , and l owered t he government ' s bur den consi derabl y.

Not abl y, i t r esul t ed i n a st andar d l ower t han t he "wi l l f ul

di sr egar d" i nst r uct i on pr oposed by t he gover nment .

accor dance wi t h t r ut h, f act , r eason, or r ul e; abnor mal , i r r egul ar ;i ncor r ect , i naccur at e, er r oneous, wr ong, " Oxf or d Engl i shDi ct i onar y, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. oed. com/ vi ew/ Ent r y/ 92817; and"not i n accor d wi t h pr opr i et y, modest y, good manner s, or goodt ast e, " Mer r i am- Webst er Onl i ne Di ct i onar y, ht t p: / / www. mer r i am-webst er . com/ di ct i onar y/ i mpr oper .

-21-


22/35

The di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r uct i on was not near l y cl ose

enough. I nst ead, i t s def i ni t i on di l ut ed t he meani ng of mal i ce t o

an i mper mi ssi bl y l ow st andar d. 13

C. Harmless Error

Our anal ysi s does not end wi t h t he det er mi nat i on t hat t he

i nst r uct i on was er r oneous. "Even an i ncor r ect i nst r uct i on t o whi ch

an obj ect i on has been pr eserved wi l l not r equi r e us t o set asi de a

ver di ct i f t he er r or i s har ml ess. " Sasso, 695 F. 3d at 29. We

empl oy " t wo barometers f or measur i ng harml ess er r or i n a cr i mi nal

case. " I d. I ssues of a const i t ut i onal di mensi on r equi r e t he

government t o "pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he er r or di d

not i nf l uence t he ver di ct . " I d. ( quot i ng Chapman v. Cal i f or ni a,

386 U. S. 18, 23- 24 ( 1967) ) . I f , however , t he er r or i s f ound t o be

of a non- const i t ut i onal di mensi on, a l ess st r i ngent st andar d

appl i es t o al l ow a convi ct i on t o st and "as l ong as i t can be sai d

' wi t h f ai r assur ance, af t er ponder i ng al l t hat happened wi t hout

st r i ppi ng t he er r oneous act i on f r om t he whol e, t hat t he j udgment

was not subst ant i al l y swayed by t he er r or . ' " I d. ( quot i ng

Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed St at es, 328 U. S. 750, 765 ( 1946) ) .

13Sect i on 46507 pr ohi bi t s gi vi ng f al se i nf or mat i on about a bombt hr eat "wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d f or

t he saf et y of human l i f e" ( emphasi s added) . Thi s di sj unct i vephr asi ng pr ovi des t wo bases f or convi ct i on - - t he j ur y coul d havef ound t hat Gr ay had not act ed wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y, but hadact ed r eckl essl y. However , wher e "one of t he possi bl e bases ofconvi ct i on was l egal l y er r oneous" and "i t i s i mpossi bl e t o t el lwhi ch gr ound t he j ur y sel ect ed, " we must set asi de the ver di ct .Uni t ed St at es v. Ni eves- Bur gos, 62 F. 3d 431, 436 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

-22-


23/35

Al t hough Gr ay char act er i zes t he i ncor r ect j ur y

i nst r uct i on as depr i vi ng her of a f undament al l y f ai r t r i al , she

of f er s us no mor e t han t hat . She does not present a const i t ut i onal

argument , does not even hi nt at a st andard of r evi ew f or harml ess

er r or , does not addr ess t he quest i on of pr ej udi ce, and seems t o ask

us t o si mpl y pr esume pr ej udi ce f r om t he er r oneous i nst r uct i on.

Si mi l ar l y, t he gover nment pr ovi des us wi t h no har ml ess er r or

anal ysi s .

As f or what st andar d of r evi ew t o appl y, Sasso pr ovi des

gui dance. 695 F. 3d at 30. The cour t i n Sasso had err ed by

of f er i ng t he j ur y a def i ni t i on of "wi l l f ul l y" t hat di l ut ed t he

l evel of sci ent er r equi r ed by t he st at ut e under whi ch t he def endant

had been char ged. I d. I n t hat case, we det er mi ned t hat t he er r or

was of t he non- const i t ut i onal var i et y, r equi r i ng us t o appl y the

l ess st r i ngent st andard t o determi ne whether t he j udgment was

"subst ant i al l y swayed by the er r or . " I d. at 29 ( quot i ng Kot t eakos,

328 U. S. at 765) . We wi l l do t he same here.

I n r evi ewi ng t he recor d, ar guabl y t he onl y evi dence of

mal i ce was t he st at ement i n t he conf essi on: " I di d i t mor e to get

t he gr ound wor ker s i n t r oubl e t han cause what I di d, " and t he

t est i mony of Fl i ght At t endant Hyde that Gr ay t ol d her t hat she was

upset wi t h Amer i can Ai r l i nes and woul d "Get back at t hem. " The

j ury coul d have consi der ed t he f ul l t ext of t he conf ess i on, whi ch

i ncl uded Gr ay' s st at ement t hat she "car e[ d] deepl y about AA, cr ew

-23-


24/35

& t he passenger s, " and concl uded t hat she may have i ntended some

beni gn mi schi ef t owar d a co- wor ker , r at her t han i nt endi ng behavi or

evi denci ng evi l i nt ent . As t o Hyde' s t est i mony, t he j ur y coul d

have wei ghed her damni ng st atement on t he st and, and cont r ast ed i t

wi t h the more i nnocuous account she gave i mmedi atel y f ol l owi ng the

i nci dent t o concl ude t hat Gr ay bor e no evi l i nt ent . Yet t he j ur y

coul d r easonabl y have deemed t hese i nt ent i ons as i mpr oper . We

t her ef or e cannot say wi t h f ai r assur ance t hat t he j udgment was not

subst ant i al l y swayed by the er r or .

The gover nment had t he bur den of provi ng t hat Gr ay wr ot e

t he bomb t hr eat wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y. The pr oof of mot i ve was

l ess t han compel l i ng, and Gr ay' s mot i vat i on was debat abl e. The

cour t ' s i ncor r ect def i ni t i on of mal i ce - - "evi l pur pose or i mpr oper

mot i ve" - - i mper mi ssi bl y di l ut ed t he st andar d and i nt r oduced " t oo

gr eat a l i kel i hood t hat t he i nst r uct i onal er r or may have i nf l uenced

t he ver di ct . " Sasso, 695 F. 3d at 31. Our r evi ew of t he r ecor d

convi nces us t hat t he er r or was not har ml ess.

CONCLUSION

The di st r i ct cour t ' s j ury i nst r uct i on was er r oneous, and

Gr ay was pr ej udi ced by the l i kel i hood t hat t he di l ut ed st andar d may

have i nf l uenced t he ver di ct . Consequent l y, we vacat e t he

convi ct i on and r emand f or a new t r i al i n accor dance wi t h t hi s

opi ni on.

-Dissenting Opinion Follows-

-24-


25/35

HOWARD, Circuit Judge, dissenting. When a f ederal

st at ut e i ncor por at es a t er m t hat has accumul at ed a set t l ed common

l aw meani ng, we "must i nf er , unl ess t he st at ut e ot her wi se di ct at es,

t hat Congr ess means t o i ncor por at e" t hat t er m' s " est abl i shed

meani ng. " Neder v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S. 1, 21 ( 1999) ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . That command i s compl i cat ed i n t hi s case because, l i ke

wor ds, " [ m] al i ce i s a r at her sl i pper y concept . " Car son v. Uni t ed

St ates, 556 A. 2d 1076, 1079 ( D. C. 1989) . Cour t s have not al ways

been consi st ent i n descr i bi ng mal i ce' s common l aw def i ni t i on. But

t he di scord that may have been br ed by a f ew deci si ons ought not

di st r act us f r om adher i ng t o an est abl i shed maxi m of st at ut or y

i nt er pr et at i on. I n t hi s case, t he di str i ct cour t ' s i nstr uct i ons

compor t ed wi t h t he set t l ed common l aw def i ni t i on of mal i ce. I

r espect f ul l y di ssent because I t hi nk that t he maj or i t y endor ses a

t r uncat ed def i ni t i on of mal i ce t hat l eads i t t o unnecessar i l y l ook

beyond the common l aw meani ng and f i nd er r or .

The maj or i t y accepts a def i ni t i on of mal i ce provi ded by

t he Four t h and Ei ght h Ci r cui t s as t he set t l ed common l aw meani ng.

Under t hat def i ni t i on, t he maj or i t y cont ends, t o act mal i ci ousl y

means, si mpl y, t o act "i nt ent i onal l y. " Maj . Op. at 15- 16. Yet , as

subst ant i al aut hor i t y demonst r at es, t hat def i ni t i on i s, at best ,

i ncompl et e. "Mal i ce i s not sat i sf i ed si mpl y by [ act i ng] wi t h an

i nt ent i onal or r eckl ess ment al st at e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ser awop,

410 F. 3d 656, 664 ( 10t h Ci r . 2005) . I nst ead, t he set t l ed common

-25-


26/35

l aw def i ni t i on of mal i ce "speci f i cal l y r equi r es commi t t i ng t he

wr ongf ul act wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on, excuse, or mi t i gat i on. " I d.

( emphasi s added) ; accor d Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onary 1100 ( 10t h ed.

2014) ( def i ni ng mal i ce as t he "i nt ent , wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on or

excuse, t o commi t a wr ongf ul act " ) . We have pr evi ousl y

acknowl edged t hi s pr eci se def i ni t i on, i ncl udi ng i t s r equi r ement of

more t han a mere i ntent i onal act i on. See Hernandez- Cuevas v.

Tayl or , 723 F. 3d 91, 102 n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Ot her ci r cui t s have al so endorsed t hi s unabr i dged common

l aw def i ni t i on when const r ui ng Congr ess' s use of t he t er mmal i ce i n

f eder al st at ut es. I n Ser awop, f or exampl e, t he Tent h Ci r cui t

adopt ed t hi s meani ng f or pur poses of t he f ederal mansl aught er

st at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 1112. See 410 F. 3d at 664. The Ni nt h

Ci r cui t , t oo, has appl i ed t hi s common l aw def i ni t i on t o cer t ai n

f eder al st at ut es. See Uni t ed St at es v. Kel l y, 676 F. 3d 912, 918

( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( const r ui ng st at ut e cri mi nal i zi ng wi l l f ul and

mal i ci ous dest r uct i on of mar i t i me pr oper t y, codi f i ed at 18 U. S. C.

1363) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Doe, 136 F. 3d 631, 634- 35 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998)

( const r ui ng ar son st at ut e, codi f i ed at 18 U. S. C. 81) .

Thi s def i ni t i on' s common l aw pedi gree i s f ur t her

conf i r med by i t s r epeat ed i nvocat i on i n t he deci si ons of sever al

st at e cour t s and t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, as wel l as i n var i ous

t r eat i ses. See, e. g. , McGee v. St at e, 162 P. 3d 1251, 1258 & n. 32

( Al aska 2007) ( def i ni ng mal i ce as t he " t he i nt ent i onal commi ssi on

-26-


27/35

of ' an unl awf ul act wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on or ot her l egal excuse' ") ;

Car son, 556 A. 2d at 1079 ( adopt i ng def i ni t i on t hat i ncl udes " t he

absence of al l el ement s of j ust i f i cat i on, excuse or r ecogni zed

mi t i gat i on" when const r ui ng a cr uel t y t o chi l dr en st at ut e) ; Dean v.

St at e, 668 P. 2d 639, 643 ( Wyo. 1983) ( def i ni ng mal i ce as " t hat

st at e of mi nd whi ch act uat es conduct i nj ur i ous t o ot her s wi t hout

l awf ul r eason, cause or excuse") ; Commonweal t h v. Yor k, 50 Mass. ( 9

Met . ) 93, 105 ( 1845) ( def i ni ng mal i ce " i n i t s l egal sense" as

meani ng "a wr ongf ul act , done i nt ent i onal l y, wi t hout j ust cause or

excuse") ; Am. J ur . 2d Cr i mi nal Law 129 ( 2008) ( "Mal i ce, i n i t s

l egal sense, denot es t hat condi t i on of mi nd mani f est ed by

i nt ent i onal l y doi ng a wr ongf ul act wi t hout j ust cause or excuse. " ) ;

Rol l i n M. Per ki ns & Ronal d N. Boyce, Cr i mi nal Law 857 ( 3d ed. 1982)

( "[ I ] n t he absence of j ust i f i cat i on, excuse or r ecogni zed

mi t i gat i on, i t i s mal i ci ous t o i nt end t o do what const i t ut es t he

actus reus of t he cr i me i n quest i on. ") .

As per t i nent her e, t he f eder al st at ut e t hat Gr ay was

char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng pr oscr i bes maki ng a f al se bomb t hr eat

"wi l l f ul l y and mal i ci ousl y" whi l e "knowi ng t he i nf or mat i on t o be

f al se. " 49 U. S. C. 46507( 1) ( emphasi s added) . By i ncl udi ng

"mal i ci ousl y, " Congr ess i ndi cated t hat t he gover nment must pr ove,

beyond a r easonabl e doubt , t hat a def endant acted wi t hout a

cogni zabl e j ust i f i cat i on, excuse, or mi t i gat i ng mot i vat i on.

Ser awop, 410 F. 3d at 664 & n. 5. I ndeed, t he Supreme Cour t has

-27-


28/35


29/35

"i nt ent i onal l y or wi t h wi l l f ul di sr egar d. " Maj . Op. at 11. But an

i nst r uct i on r equi r i ng t he gover nment t o pr ove t hat t he def endant

act ed mer el y i nt ent i onal l y, wi t hout mor e, i s i ncompl et e. See Wade

v. St at e, 368 S. E. 2d 482, 488 ( Ga. 1988) ( f i ndi ng er r or wher e

mal i ce i nst r uct i on excl uded el ement t hat t he def endant act ed

"wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on or ser i ous pr ovocat i on" because t he

i nst r uct i on "by i t s i ncompl et eness, r emoved f r om t he pr osecut i on

t he bur den of pr ovi ng ever y el ement of t he cr i me . . . beyond a

r easonabl e doubt " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

Thus, t he Four t h Ci r cui t ' s di scover y of a r edundancy i n

an anal ogous s t atut e, t he Bomb Hoax Act , r est s on a f l awed pr emi se.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Hassouneh, 199 F. 3d 175, 182 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000)

( "[ I ] f ' mal i ci ousl y' si mpl y meant ' i nt ent i onal l y, ' t her e woul d seem

t o be a r edundancy. " ) . The maj or i t y' s r el i ance on Hassouneh t o

dr i ve i t s anal ysi s of t he st at ut e i n t hi s case si mi l ar l y l eads i t

ast r ay. Havi ng f ound mal i ce at common l aw t o r equi r e onl y an

Gul l et t , 75 F. 3d 941, 947 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.Sweet , 985 F. 3d 443, 445 ( 8t h Ci r . 1993) ) . And, i n any event , I donot r ead Gr ady t o pr ovi de t he cat egor i cal r ej ect i on of t he phr ase"wi t hout j ust cause or r eason" t he maj or i t y opi ni on por t ends.I nst ead, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t equi vocated on t he common l awdef i ni t i on i n some r espect . The cour t not ed t hat , i n t he speci f i ccase bef or e i t , "t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o omi t t he ' wi t hout

j ust cause or r eason' l anguage f r om t he i nst r uct i on" wasnever t hel ess "wel l - suppor t ed by t he recor d" because "Gr ady ha[ d]f ai l ed t o poi nt t o any cogni zabl e l egal j ust i f i cat i on f or st ar t i ngt he f i r e. " Gr ady, 746 F. 3d at 849. The cour t concl uded, t hus,t hat " [ t ] her e was si mpl y no l egal basi s t o i ncl ude t he phr ase andt he di st r i ct cour t acted wel l wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n omi t t i ngi t . " I d.

-29-


30/35


31/35

Supr eme Cour t has consi st ent l y i nst r uct ed t hat t he gr ounds f or

i nf er r i ng any al t er nat i ve i nt ent by Congr ess must come f r om t he

f ace of t he st at ut e, t he def i ni t i ons t he st at ut e pr ovi des, and any

ot her , r el at ed pr ovi si ons. See, e. g. , Neder , 527 U. S. at 24 n. 7

( not i ng that " r ebut t al " of a common l aw meani ng "can onl y come f r om

t he t ext or st r uct ur e of t he . . . st at ut es t hemsel ves") ;

Nat i onwi de Mut . I ns. Co. v. Dar den, 503 U. S. 318, 322- 23 ( 1992)

( not i ng t hat "a cour t must i nf er , unl ess t he st at ut e ot her wi se

di ct at es" t hat Congr ess i nt ends t o appl y t he common l aw meani ng,

f i ndi ng ERI SA' s st at ut or y def i ni t i on of "empl oyee" " compl et el y

ci r cul ar , " and t hen appl yi ng t he set t l ed common l aw def i ni t i on

because i n " t he r est of t he Act " t he Cour t f ound no "pr ovi si on

ei t her gi vi ng speci f i c gui dance on t he ter m' s meani ng or suggest i ng

t hat [ appl yi ng t he common l aw meani ng] woul d t hwar t t he

congr essi onal desi gn or l ead t o absur d r esul t s" ( emphasi s added) ) .

Congr ess chose t o empl oy the ter m "mal i ci ousl y" i n 46507( 1) but

pr ovi ded no def i ni t i on of t hat t er m i n t he st at ut e. Pr esumabl y

Congr ess was aware t hat "mal i ce" had a set t l ed and st or i ed meani ng

under t he common l aw. Thus, absent t he maj or i t y' s i l l usory

"r edundancy" or any ot her i ndi cat i on i n t he stat ut e to depar t f r om

t he set t l ed common l aw meani ng, t her e i s no need or j ust i f i cat i on

t o l ook t o t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y.

Mor eover , I amnot convi nced t hat t he At t or ney Gener al ' s

passi ng use of t he phr ase "evi l or r eckl ess mot i ve, " even i f

-31-


32/35

r el evant , can bear t he wei ght t he maj or i t y pl aces on i t . I t i s not

at al l cl ear t hat t he At t or ney Gener al ' s i nf or mal account of t he

pr act i cal r eal i t i es t hat necessi t at ed a change t o t he Bomb Hoax Act

was i nt ended t o descr i be t he f ul l r each of t he t er m"wi l l f ul l y and

mal i ci ousl y" as used i n t he st at ut e. We shoul d gi ve Congr ess t he

benef i t of t he t er m i t actual l y chose t o empl oy, but l ef t

undef i ned, even i f t hat t er mr eaches f at her t han t he si t uat i ons t he

At t or ney Gener al descr i bed. And i t i s wor t h not i ng t hat mal i ce, i n

t he l egal sense, has never r equi r ed a showi ng of "hat r ed, spi t e,

gr udge, or i l l - wi l l . " Kel l y, 676 F. 3d at 918 ( quot i ng Per ki ns &

Boyce, supr a, at 857) ; accor d Bl ack' s, supr a, at 1100 ( not i ng t hat

def i ni ng mal i ce as "[ i ] l l wi l l " or "wi ckedness of hear t " i s "most

t ypi cal i n non- l egal cont ext s") .

Thus, cont r ar y t o t he maj or i t y, I concl ude t hat t he

set t l ed common l aw def i ni t i on, r equi r i ng a two- pr onged showi ng t hat

t he def endant i nt ent i onal l y commi t t ed a "wr ongf ul act " and di d so

"wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on, excuse, or mi t i gat i on, " Ser awop, 410 F. 3d

at 664, i s t he one Congr ess i nt ended us t o appl y i n 46507( 1) . 17

And t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons bel ow compor t ed wi t h t hat

set t l ed common l aw meani ng. Al t hough perhaps not per f ect , t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s char ge t hat t he j ur y must f i nd Gr ay "d[ i d]

17 An i nt ent t o do t he wr ongf ul act may not al ways benecessar y, ei t her . An act mi ght , i nst ead, be done wi t h suf f i ci entdi sr egar d f or t he f or eseeabl e har m t hat i s l i kel y t o r esul t sucht hat i t i s consi der ed mal i ci ous. See Kel l y, 676 F. 3d at 918 n. 6;Char l es v. Uni t ed St at es, 371 A. 2d 404, 411 ( D. C. 1977) .

-32-


33/35

somet hi ng that i s knowi ngl y wr ong" wi t h an "evi l pur pose or

i mpr oper mot i ve" adequatel y conveyed the common l aw def i ni t i on of

mal i ce. I do not see how t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i ncl usi on of t he

wor d " i mpr oper " t he second t i me t hat i t pr ovi ded t he i nst r uct i on - -

such t hat t he j ur y mi ght have f ound mal i ce i f i t concl uded Gr ay had

an "evi l pur pose" or an " i mpr oper mot i ve" - - i n any way wat er ed

down t he government ' s bur den under t he st atut e. 18 An " i mproper "

mot i ve or pur pose equat es wi t h a l ack of j ust i f i cat i on or excuse;

i n ot her wor ds, havi ng a j ust i f i cat i on or excuse f or maki ng a f al se

bomb t hr eat woul d perhaps suppl y a pr oper pur pose or mot i ve. And,

I am l ess t r oubl ed t han t he maj or i t y appear s t o be t hat , by

concl udi ng a def endant act s mal i ci ousl y when she has an i mpr oper

mot i ve, we wi l l sweep i n t he ent i r e "uni ver se of t hi ngs t hat ar e

consi der ed i mpr oper , " such as "wear i ng a hat i ndoor s. " Maj . Op. at

20- 21. To f i nd mal i ce, t he j ur y al ways must concl ude t hat t he

def endant has al so t aken an i nt ent i onal , wr ongf ul act i on

( pr esumabl y one t hat has been st at ut or i l y pr oscr i bed) .

Gr ay' s conf essi on concl usi vel y demonst r at es t hat she

act ed i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ng her act i on was wr ong, and wi t hout any

j ust i f i cat i on, excuse, or mi t i gat i on. She admi t t ed t o maki ng t he

18 Al t hough used i n a ci vi l , not cri mi nal , cont ext , I f i nd i tpar t i cul ar l y i nf or mat i ve t hat t he t er m"i mpr oper mot i ve" expl i ci t l yhas been used t o descr i be the showi ng of mal i ce necessar y f or t or t sl i ke mal i ci ous pr osecut i on. See Smi t h v. Wade, 461 U. S. 30, 53( 1983) ( not i ng t hat mal i ci ous prosecut i on r equi r es a showi ng of"i mpr oper mot i ve" of t he t or t f easor ) ; i d. at 60 n. 3, 78 n. 12( Rehnqui st , J . , di ssent i ng) ( not i ng t he same and col l ect i ng cases) .

-33-


34/35


35/35

i ndi cat i on i n t he st at ut e t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o do so her e,

however , and si nce t he common l aw def i ni t i on i s suf f i ci ent l y cl ear ,

I r espectf ul l y di ssent .

Documents

United States v. Gray, 1st Cir. (2015)