In the ongoing case of United States v. William Brian Marsan, (sov cit pilot) the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alaska has filed a comprehensive motion in limine aimed at preemptively addressing potential arguments that could derail the trial’s focus on factual determinations. The motion, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas C. Bradley, seeks to exclude arguments and evidence from Marsan that align with sovereign citizen ideologies and other legally unfounded claims.
Key Points of the Motion:
Excluding Sovereign Citizen Arguments: The motion anticipates that Marsan, who identifies as an “American State National” and claims not to be subject to federal jurisdiction, may present arguments suggesting that the court has no authority over him. These assertions are typical of the sovereign citizen movement, which holds that individuals can opt out of federal or state legal systems by declaring allegiance to an unrecognized legal status. The government references Marsan’s pretrial actions, such as rejecting official court documents and asserting that he is not a “Federal Person,” as clear indicators of his intent to pursue such a defense.
Established Jurisdiction: The government’s motion firmly rebuts these claims by citing 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over all federal offenses. It also references multiple precedents, including United States v. Przybyla and United States v. Mundt, where courts have repeatedly found that sovereign citizen arguments are not just meritless but “patently frivolous.” The motion includes several cases in which similar defenses were dismissed, underscoring the uniform rejection by U.S. courts of arguments based on sovereign citizenship.
Limiting Testimony and Evidence: The motion seeks to bar Marsan from introducing testimony or evidence that could confuse the jury by implying that his status as a so-called sovereign individual exempts him from U.S. laws. The government stresses that only the court has the authority to instruct the jury on the law, and allowing the defense to present erroneous interpretations would undermine this principle. The motion also prohibits the defense from introducing self-serving hearsay or speculative testimony aimed at supporting Marsan’s sovereign beliefs unless he testifies directly and lays the necessary foundation.
Preventing Jury Confusion and Nullification Attempts: The government warns against potential attempts to introduce arguments aimed at jury nullification, where a jury could be influenced to acquit based on disagreement with the law itself. While acknowledging that juries have the power to nullify, the motion emphasizes that defendants do not have a right to encourage this through argument or evidence. Courts have routinely denied jury instructions that validate nullification, with the motion citing Merced v. McGrath and other cases to reinforce this point.
Pro Se Representation and Limitations: The motion also addresses Marsan’s self-representation. It emphasizes that while he has the right to represent himself, he cannot bypass courtroom protocols by presenting evidence or testifying indirectly through arguments or interactions with witnesses. This rule ensures that the jury considers only properly submitted evidence and maintains a clear boundary between Marsan’s roles as a defendant and an attorney.
Impact and Legal Context: The motion by the U.S. Attorney’s Office serves as a detailed blueprint for countering sovereign citizen defenses, which have increasingly appeared in various cases. This preemptive measure ensures that the trial remains focused on the factual issues at hand—namely, Marsan’s alleged actions and intent—without being derailed by legally unfounded arguments. By setting these parameters, the court aims to uphold the integrity of the trial, prevent jury confusion, and reinforce established legal standards regarding jurisdiction and applicable law.
The filing in United States v. Marsan underscores the judiciary’s proactive stance against the misuse of sovereign citizen rhetoric in courtrooms. The comprehensive approach outlined in the motion not only anticipates potential disruptions but also solidifies the court’s role as the exclusive source of legal instruction. The outcome of this motion could set a critical precedent for future cases involving similar defense strategies and emphasizes the importance of maintaining order and adherence to established legal principles in federal trials.