United States v. Roth

John Roth (defendant) was a university professor and expert in plasma technology. The technology could be used to affect electrohydrodynamic flow, which was relevant to aircraft flight. Roth’s former student Daniel Sherman was a principal for Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc. (Atmospheric), and Roth was a minority owner in Atmospheric. In 2004, Atmospheric obtained an Air Force contract to develop plasma actuators that could be used to control unmanned military drone aircraft. The project would consist of a design phase and a testing phase. Sherman told Roth that the project would be paid for using funds reserved for military projects, and Roth knew that meant research data could not be shared with foreigners. Roth agreed to consult on the project and was given technical data reports that were identified as export controlled. Roth also signed an agreement with Atmospheric acknowledging that the project work was subject to export controls. Nevertheless, Roth allowed two graduate students, one Chinese national and one Iranian national, to access project reports and an actuator-testing device, respectively. Several of the university’s administrators expressed their concern to Roth that foreign students should not be working on the export-controlled project. An administrator also warned Roth not to take project data with him abroad. In 2006, Roth traveled to China to conduct lectures and took both paper and electronic copies of project reports with him. In 2008, the United States (plaintiff) charged Roth with several crimes, including 15 counts of exporting defense articles in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (the act). After the presentation of evidence, the jury was instructed that a conviction required willfulness, or proof that Roth “voluntarily and intentionally violated a known legal duty,” with the “specific intent to do something he knew was unlawful.” The district court rejected a proffered jury instruction regarding ignorance of the law. The jury convicted Roth of all charged crimes. Roth appealed, claiming that he did not bring defense articles to China and that the court committed instructional errors.