United States v. Gowadia, No. 11-10058 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for charges that he unlawfully exported defense services and technical data related to the design of the B-2 stealth bomber and other classified government projects to the People's Republic of China, and that he disclosed related classified information to persons in Switzerland, Israel, and Germany. The court rejected defendant's claim that the right to prompt presentment before a magistrate judge was triggered before he was actually arrested, and that his inculpatory statements he made to federal agents investigating his activities should have been suppressed; the court rejected defendant's contention that the words "arrest or other detention" in 18 U.S.C. 3501(c) expand the right to prompt presentment beyond the contours of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a); and defendant could not invoke the McNabb-Mallory rule because he was not, during the period in question, either formally arrested or in "other detention" within the meaning of section 3501. The court also concluded that there was no error in the "public domain" or "basic marketing information" jury instructions under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction for violations of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the Espionage Act of 1917, and related provisions on charges that the defendant unlawfully exported defense services and technical data related to the design of the B-2 stealth bomber and other classified government projects to the People’s Republic of China, and that he disclosed related classified information to persons in Switzerland, Israel, and Germany. The defendant argued that evidence obtained during his interrogations should have been suppressed because of an unnecessary or unreasonable delay in presentment to a magistrate judge. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that the words “arrest or other detention” in 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) expand the right to prompt presentment beyond the contours of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a), meaning that the right to presentment may attach even absent formal arrest. Assuming without deciding that “other detention” and formal “arrest” in § 3501(c) have different meanings, the panel held that the defendant cannot invoke the McNabb-Mallory rule – which generally renders inadmissible confessions made during periods of detention that violate the prompt presentment requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a) – because he was not, during the period in question, either formally arrested or in “other detention” within the meaning of § 3501. The panel held that there was no error in the district court’s jury instructions on the government’s burden with respect to information in the public domain and basic marketing information.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.