Quote:
|
Originally Posted by publius42
The experience made me wonder why they even took the case.
|
From the decision:
Quote:
|
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that separate proof of intent was not required. 517 F. 3d 1224, 1229 (CA11 2008). That decision created a conflict among the Circuits over whether the accidental discharge of a firearm during the specified crimes gives rise to the 10-year mandatory minimum. See United States v. Brown, 449 F. 3d 154 (CADC 2006) (holding that it does not). We granted certiorari to resolve that conflict. 555 U. S. ____ (2008).
|
We had a split between the 11th Circuit and the 3rd Circuit. The SCOTUS has now resolved the issue.
I read the decision as saying that mens rea is met in the first instance of the violent act. Any and all unintended consequences that may follow, are linked to that initial act. Hence no other intent need be considered, to sustain the additional sentencing, should the other (statutory) conditions be present.