## Facts

- Caryn Camp worked as a chemist for IDEXX, Inc., a veterinary diagnostics manufacturer, and signed non-disclosure, non-competition, and ethics policies restricting disclosure and use of IDEXX confidential information.
- Camp began an email correspondence with Stephen R. Martin, a California scientist associated with a business venture, initially discussing personal matters and workplace dissatisfaction.
- The correspondence shifted to discussions about competing with IDEXX and obtaining IDEXX-related information.
- Camp provided IDEXX internal information and materials to Martin, including product/process and competitive information, while recognizing the conduct as ethically questionable.
- The government alleged Martin solicited and encouraged Camp to obtain and transmit IDEXX confidential and trade-secret information to aid competition.
- Camp mistakenly sent an email intended for Martin to an IDEXX manager; after investigation, she agreed to cooperate with the government and testify against Martin.
- A grand jury indicted Martin and Camp for multiple counts including wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracies related to trade secrets and interstate transportation of stolen property, and a substantive transportation count.
- After trial, the jury convicted Martin of four wire-fraud counts, two mail-fraud counts, conspiracy to steal trade secrets, and conspiracy to transport stolen property; it acquitted him on other wire-fraud counts and on the substantive interstate transportation count.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Martin’s convictions for wire fraud and mail fraud based on a scheme to deprive IDEXX of confidential commercial information.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy to steal trade secrets, including an agreement with Camp and the existence of information qualifying as “trade secrets” under federal law.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions on all counts of conviction.
- Applying a deferential sufficiency standard and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court held a rational jury could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the jury could infer an agreement from the parties’ communications and coordinated conduct, even without an express or formal contract.
- The court held the jury could find that at least some transmitted information constituted trade secrets, given its commercial value and IDEXX’s measures to maintain secrecy.
- The court rejected Martin’s claim that the evidence failed to show the required intent, concluding the record supported findings of intent to misappropriate and use IDEXX’s confidential information for competitive advantage.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, an appellate court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A conspiracy agreement may be proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred from communications and concerted action; it need not be express.
- Employer confidentiality measures (e.g., non-disclosure agreements, ethics policies) may support a finding that information was treated as secret and had independent economic value from not being generally known.
- In fraud prosecutions premised on misappropriation of confidential business information, evidence that the defendant solicited and received protected information and intended competitive use can support findings of fraudulent intent and participation in a scheme.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed Martin’s wire-fraud, mail-fraud, and conspiracy convictions, holding that the email record, Camp’s testimony, and IDEXX’s confidentiality practices provided sufficient evidence for a jury to find an agreement to misappropriate protected commercial information and to use interstate communications in furtherance of the scheme.


United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000)