Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 411, D. Minn.)

Summary

Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Improper Defenses in United States of America v. Aimee Marie Bock, Salim Said, Abdulkadir Nur Salah and Abdi Nur Salah, Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/DTS), Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS, in the District of Minnesota, Doc. 411 filed 01/10/25. The motion argues under heading A that the defendants are precluded from seeking an advice-of-counsel defense, stating that counsel have not indicated an intent to offer one and that no evidence supporting it has been presented. Under heading B it argues that defendants cannot claim ignorance or a misapprehension of the law and that a mistake-of-law argument would invite jury nullification. It cites cases including Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 453 (1908). The motion is dated January 8, 2025 and signed /s/Joseph H. Thompson.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 411   Filed 01/10/25   Page 1 of 3




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                       Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                   Plaintiff,

      v.                                   GOVERNMENT’S MOTION
                                           IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
1. AIMEE MARIE BOCK,                       IMPROPER DEFENSES
3. SALIM SAID,
4. ABDULKADIR NUR SALAH,
   and
6. ABDI NUR SALAH,

                   Defendants.

      The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Andrew M. Luger,

United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Joseph H. Thompson,

Harry M. Jacobs, Matthew S. Ebert, and Daniel W. Bobier, Assistant United States

Attorneys, respectfully submits the following motion in limine to exclude improper

defenses.

      A.    Advice-of-Counsel Defense

      Counsel have not indicated that they intend to offer an advice-of-counsel

defense for any defendant. Should that position change, however, the defendants are

nonetheless precluded from seeking an advice-of-counsel defense in this case.

      Alleging that one acted on advice of counsel is not a freestanding defense but

can be used to negate the mens rea of “willful and unlawful intent.” Williamson v.

United States, 207 U.S. 425, 453 (1908); see also United States v. Blagojevich,

794 F.3d 729, 741 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). In other words, an advice-of-
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS         Doc. 411     Filed 01/10/25   Page 2 of 3




counsel defense can only be pursued if the charged offense is a specific-intent crime

or has a scienter requirement of willfulness. United States v. Powell, 513 F.2d 1249,

1251 (1975). “To rely upon the advice of counsel in his defense, a defendant must show

that he: (i) fully disclosed all material facts to his attorney before seeking advice; and

(ii) actually relied on his counsel’s advice in the good faith belief that his conduct was

legal.” United States v. Rice, 449 F.3d 887, 897 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Model Crim.

Jury Instr. 8th Cir. § 9.09 (2021).

      The defendants have not presented any evidence supporting an advice-of-

counsel defense, let alone met their burden of proof. Absent such a showing, they are

not entitled to assert any advice-of-counsel defense at trial.

      B.     Mistake-of Law Defense

      Defendants cannot absolve themselves of liability by claiming ignorance or a

misapprehension of the law. See United States v. Moreira-Bravo, 56 F.4th 568,

478 (8th Cir. 2022) (noting “the common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance

of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally”). Any argument

that they mistakenly relied on their belief that they were in compliance with the law

would invite jury nullification based on a mistake-of-law defense. That would be

improper. The law is plain that a defendant cannot suggest in any way that the jury

should acquit him even if it finds that the government has met its burden of proof.

See United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 614 (2d Cir. 1997) (“We categorically

reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is

desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to



                                            2
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS         Doc. 411     Filed 01/10/25   Page 3 of 3




prevent.”); Scarpa v. Dubois, 38 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that “defense

counsel may not press arguments for jury nullification in criminal cases”); United

States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1190 (1st Cir. 1993) (“Neither court nor counsel

should encourage jurors to exercise [nullification] power. . . . A trial judge, therefore,

may block defense attorneys’ attempts to serenade a jury with the siren song of

nullification.”).

Dated: January 8, 2025                          Respectfully Submitted,

                                                ANDREW M. LUGER
                                                United States Attorney

                                                /s/Joseph H. Thompson

                                         BY:    JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
                                                HARRY M. JACOBS
                                                MATTHEW S. EBERT
                                                DANIEL W. BOBIER
                                                Assistant United States Attorneys




                                            3


File and source

File

411.pdf

Size

104,353 bytes

SHA-256

c8eb5c227df765bd9c160abff7c84cc20b21279308638f3bb2bc39ba06dab034

Our copy

411.pdf

Original

archive.org