## Facts

- TWA Flight 800 exploded shortly after takeoff on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people onboard.
- Wreckage was recovered and secured at a government-controlled facility in Calverton, New York, as part of an official investigation involving multiple agencies.
- James Sanders, an investigative reporter and author, pursued an independent investigation into the crash, including a theory that the aircraft was struck by a U.S. Navy missile.
- Through his wife, Elizabeth Sanders (a TWA flight attendant), James Sanders contacted Captain Terrell Stacey, a TWA pilot participating in the official investigation.
- Stacey initially refused to provide physical evidence, citing confidentiality and the prohibition on removing any material from the facility, but later agreed to obtain a residue sample from the wreckage for James Sanders.
- Testing identified the residue as solid rocket fuel.
- A March 10, 1997 newspaper article reported Sanders’s theory and stated he obtained a sample of reddish residue through a confidential source; Sanders later published a book.
- The government identified Stacey as the source, obtained his cooperation, and permitted him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
- James and Elizabeth Sanders were charged under 49 U.S.C. § 1155(b) (unauthorized removal of any part of a civil aircraft involved in an accident or property on the aircraft) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), including conspiracy to remove the sample without authority.
- A jury in the Eastern District of New York convicted both defendants of conspiracy and aiding and abetting unauthorized removal; they appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution was unconstitutionally vindictive based on alleged retaliation for refusal to cooperate or disclose a confidential source.
2. Whether the prosecution impermissibly burdened First Amendment interests in protecting the confidentiality of a news source.
3. Whether removal of a small residue sample was de minimis and therefore outside 49 U.S.C. § 1155(b).
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Elizabeth Sanders knowingly joined the conspiracy and aided and abetted the offense.
5. Whether the jury should have been instructed to acquit absent proof of an additional, extra-statutory “wrongful intent.”

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court found no basis to presume or prove vindictive prosecution from cooperation discussions followed by prosecution.
- The court held the First Amendment did not immunize journalists from compliance with a valid, generally applicable criminal statute regulating conduct.
- The court rejected a de minimis limitation, concluding § 1155(b) covers unauthorized removal of “any” aircraft part or property regardless of quantity.
- The court held sufficient evidence supported Elizabeth Sanders’s conviction based on her role in initiating and facilitating contact with Stacey and furthering the scheme.
- The court upheld the district court’s refusal to give a special “wrongful intent” instruction beyond the statutory elements and mens rea.

## Legal Principles

- A prosecutor’s decision to pursue charges after a defendant refuses to cooperate, without more, does not establish unconstitutional vindictiveness.
- The First Amendment does not provide a license to violate content-neutral, generally applicable criminal laws, even when the conduct is related to newsgathering.
- 49 U.S.C. § 1155(b) applies to unauthorized removal of “any” aircraft part or property from an accident, and courts will not read a de minimis exception into clear statutory text.
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could find knowing participation in a conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Courts need not add extra-statutory intent requirements when the jury is properly instructed on the statute’s elements and required mens rea.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld the Sanderses’ convictions for conspiring to and aiding the unauthorized removal of crash-wreckage material, holding that § 1155(b) reaches even small samples, the First Amendment does not bar enforcement of generally applicable criminal statutes against journalists engaged in prohibited conduct, and the record did not support claims of vindictiveness, evidentiary insufficiency as to Elizabeth Sanders, or error in the jury instructions.


United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000)