unjust justice

[Rifleman1776]

The incident I am posting about happened last week. I am not a first hand party to the events but they were related to me by the defendant. He is a friend. For this discussion, I will call him 'Jim', not his real name. This happened in Federal Court in Arkansas.
An individual we will call 'Harry' is/was obviously not a level headed individual and a hothead government hater. For reasons unclear, he planted a bomb in a church being used as a polling place during the last election. Good fortune intervened and the bomb did not go off. He was arrested and is currently in jail.
Later 'Harry's' live-in girlfriend asked my friend, 'Jim' if she could store some of 'Harry's' belongings in a spare shed he has outside his house. 'Jim' being a good guy agreed.
As it turned out the 'belongings' contained some NFA firearms and other prohibited items. This was unknown to 'Jim' who only thought the items were 'stuff'. And, the girl was a paid FBI informant.
The recently ended trial found 'Jim' guilty on nine counts of Federal violations.
Good guy that 'Jim' is he told me the jury did exactly as they had to do under the law. He bears no animosity towards the jurors.
Here is the kicker that has me really upset. Knowledge that those items were illegal was not a requirement for guilt. Intent to hide or use them for illegal purposes was not a requirement for guilt.
The only requirement for guilt is "possession".
Most laws, of all kinds, require intent to commit a crime to establish guilt. Not so, apparently, with Federal firearms laws and ATF regulations.
'Jim' is a military hero with 34 years service and honorable discharge. He has stepped in front of bullets for friends and would do it again. He is one of the most honorable people I have ever known.
He is 70 years old and faces time in a Federal prison. His lawer believes three years will be the minimum. His health is not good. He could die in there.
The laws need to be changed to include proof of knowledge and intent. I am going to start my own letter writing campaign. Law has been misapplied. I took some law classes many years ago. One tenant of legal principals is that the law should never be used as a sword, only as a shield. In this case, IMHO, the Feds used the law as a sword against a great and loyal American with no outcome that will protect society.

[Brian Pfleuger]

While I feel bad for "Jim", storing unknown "stuff" that he knew belonged to a pyscho, terrorist, bomber was a very, very stupid thing to do.

Does he deserve what he got? Probably not, but how would you not see that coming like a freight train?

[Rifleman1776]

I cannot argue with what you say.
Please think of it as a moment of weakness poor judgement, not stupid.
'Jim' is brilliant. He made a massive mistake. But, again, the issue is "intent". This is a sad-sad situation.

[Musketeer]

I oppose any crime/law where there is no victim. The majority of the population and their elected representatives do not so we have to deal with it. The short answer when a psycho/terrorist's girlfriend asks to store his stuff in your shed is "NO". Seriously, why would you want anything that belonged to h anywhere near you?

Stupidity itself is not a criminal offense but it opens the door to many others.

[overkill0084]

GF was a paid FBI informant? While it may not fit the legal definition of entrapment, it probably ought to in this instance. Sounds like the FBI was out to stick it to "Jim." Which makes me wonder, how would he have appeared on their RADAR? Is there a history there?
Does this mean that owners of storage lockers are responsible for whatever illegal items stored by their customers? Seems like a reasonable question in light of this incident.
Once upoon a time, didn't "intent" have a bearing on whether a crime occurred? "Jim" had no intent to commit a crime and was unaware that one was occurring, as far as we know. Seems like a right, proper screwing.
I seem to recall a saying: "The law & justice often have very little to do with each other."

[Brian Pfleuger]

I have to agree that you should not be convicted of a crime when you have no knowledge of anything criminal and have taken no action.

You can speed without knowing and get a ticket because you SHOULD know the speed limit. Being in "passive possession" of a box of unknown items shouldn't be a crime.

On the other hand, "I didn't know" has been a lie used to proclaim innocence since time began. How is the law to know that "Jim" really didn't know but some other guy is lying about not knowing?

What "Jim" needed and evidently didn't get was a "whistleblower" to step up and say "Hey, this guy really didn't know, he just made a mistake."

It seems odd to me, as you describe it, they essentially came after "Jim", who had no previous involvement and had committed no previous crime. It's akin to handing a guy a paper bag and then arresting him for pot possession before he can even look inside.

Seems odd, seems like entrapment too.

[aarondhgraham]

A better lawyer.

And I don't care how the jury "had" to rule,,,
The judge should have looked at the overall scenario and suspended his sentence.

Write your state governor and your state representative,,,
I've actually seen cases like this get reviewed and overturned.

Aarond

[Edward429451]

From what I've read about it, the situation suggests to me that the GF is lieing to either work a better deal for her BF or just for the money since BF is going away...

[Nitesites]

If "Jim" is who you say he is and he was unaware what was being stored then...

And, the girl was a paid FBI informant.

The crux is there. What is she saying?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Rifleman1776

Here is the kicker that has me really upset. Knowledge that those items were illegal was not a requirement for guilt. Intent to hide or use them for illegal purposes was not a requirement for guilt.
The only requirement for guilt is "possession".

All of these statements are factual; however in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must show that "Jim" knowingly possessed an NFA weapon. That is, the jury must believe that Jim knew there was a machinegun/short-barrelled shotgun/etc. in the shed.

So if Jim knows there is a machinegun/SBS/SBR/etc. in his shed, it doesn't matter that he doesn't know it is illegal. It doesn't matter that he doesn't intend to use it for illegal purposes. It only matters that he knows the machinegun is in his shed.

This is the basic principle that was outlined in Staples vs. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

[Onward Allusion]

Rifleman1776
unjust justice

Your friend's situation is a horrible one and I hope he gets a very light or suspended sentence. (is a suspended sentence even possible in this case?).

Your friend made several mistakes. The first was having to do with anyone associated with trouble. The second was saying yes to storing the stuff. The final one was not looking into what he was storing.

This is why I try to drill into my sons' heads - Guilty by association, so be weary who you call friend.

I have only a handful of friends. Those I have are close friends that I trust. Friends of friends don't count. Acquaintances don't count. Co-workers don't count. My first rule is not to do favors for anyone outside my inner circle of family and (close) friends.

[chasep255]

I oppose any crime/law where there is no victim.

+1

[chasep255]

Write your state governor and your state representative,,,
I've actually seen cases like this get reviewed and overturned.

In NJ this guy named Brian Aitken got 7 years for having a legal handgun in his trunk. And yes I said LEGAL not illegal. Christie commuted his sentence.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/senten...-sentence.html

[Rifleman1776]

Guys, this is a Federal case.
The only person who can do anything is the President with a pardon.

[Aguila Blanca]

This is why all of us who care about the future of this country NEED to know about jury nullification.

http://fija.org/

[SwampYankee]

That's a powerful website, Aguila Blanca. Very good reading and chock full of things I knew out to be true and others I had no idea about.

[Webleymkv]

If what you say is 100% true (not saying you're being dishonest, just that you may not be getting the whole story), then it sounds like "Jim" needs to hire a better lawyer and appeal his case. If "Jim" really had no knowledge at all that there were NFA items in his shed, then by definition he did not "knowingly posses" said items. To say that "Jim" is guilty of an NFA violation in such an instance is akin to saying that someone who buys a house that, unbeknown to them, has an unregistered machinegun under the floor boards is also guilty of an NFA violation (several such cases are known and, so long as the machinegun is turned over to authorities immediately upon discovery, the people who buy the house are 100% legal).

Also, if the "FBI informant" girlfriend put the NFA items in "Jim's" shed and then turned him in, that's probably entrapment. As I recall, Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame (or perhaps infamy) was acquitted of NFA violations on the basis of entrapment. Certainly, if "Jim" really had no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of the shed and those contents were indeed placed there by an FBI informant then his case should be at least as strong, if not stronger, than Weaver's.

If the story you're getting is accurate, then it seems to me that the only thing "Jim" is guilty of is poor judgment and that, in and of itself, is not a crime.

[sonick808]

this is the type of thing that makes my stomach turn. America should not be willing to imprison (and by extension , endanger by nature of these institutions) based on a good deed. He definitely should have vetted the contents if he knew the guy's past, but some people are just open to helping out. I'm sure at 70 he was probably on fixed income and can't afford celebrity or rich person justice. If it was Lindsay Lohan that stored the items, this would be an open and shut case, no jail time. total BS. Jury nullification is going to be more and more important in the coming years, but from what i have heard in some cases, is that judges feel usurped and penalize those that would nullify. Anything from denying it's legal and lying , to imprisoning said juror for "contempt". Our legal system is in trouble. Intent and spirit isnt' even considered anymore it seems.

[44 AMP]

A careful and strict reading of the law is needed. IF the law says posession alone is the crime, and he did, in fact "possess" the items, then he is guilty. Period.

The argument is what consitutes "possession" to the court, and therefore, to the law. And, even if found guilty, it is within the courts power to assign appropriate sentence. Thats the other reason we have courts, to suit the sentence to the crime, after determining guilt.

Too little information was given to determine specific avenues of argument, other than that there must certainly be some.

Could have been that after conviction the judge could have decided "law says if you posess XXX you get 1-whatever years" and disallowed all other considerations.

Seems harsh, I know, and given only the info provided, it is. But, if "posession" was proven to a valid legal standard, then all Jim can appeal is the sentence.

IF posession was only "proven" to the court's satisfaction, and not a hard written standard, then Jim's (hopefully new) lawyer has a basis for appealing the conviction.

Jim might not have known that the boyfriend was a nutjob bomber. Might not have known anything other than a friendly girl wanted to store some stuff in a shed for a while. The information about the girl being paid by the FBI may have some bearing, or it may not.

One problem with defense in these kinds of issues is that it is extremely difficult to proove, well after the fact what you did not know. Prooving a negative is the most difficult of arguments. Even a little doubt, along with a convincing argument can sway jurors, and even judges opinions. Particularly when those being convinced are of the "knew or should have known" opinion already.

Jim's case is a serious violation of the moral principles law is supposed to be based on , but may have been technically and fully procedurely correct. Has the NRA, or any of the other pro gun leagal aid groups been sought out for advice? Better have Jim do that, along with his appeal.

[sonick808]

isn't it the government's job to prove that he DID know ? Or did that end once possession was confirmed ?

[Daggitt]

He is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The burden of proof is on the govenment.

[Webleymkv]

isn't it the government's job to prove that he DID know ? Or did that end once possession was confirmed ?

Theoretically, yes. However, I suspect that it probably came down to a "he said, she said" between "Jim" and the "FBI informant" in which the jury, apparently, believed the informant over "Jim".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

One problem with defense in these kinds of issues is that it is extremely difficult to proove, well after the fact what you did not know. Prooving a negative is the most difficult of arguments. Even a little doubt, along with a convincing argument can sway jurors, and even judges opinions. Particularly when those being convinced are of the "knew or should have known" opinion already.

No need to prove a negative. The prosecution must prove the positive. If the law simply says "possess," then the fact the NFA toys were in his shed would constitute possession. (The entrapment angle is a detour, but an important one.)

On the other hand, if the law says "knowingly possess," then the mere presence of the toys in Jim's shed is not proof that he knew anything. The government has the affirmative task of proving that he knew the items were NFA items.

[chasep255]

How is possesion actually defined? Just because the stuff is on his property does that really mean he posses it? It sounds like it is actually in the possesion of the girlfriend. As a hypothetical if someone puts something illegal in public storage is the owner of the public storage facility in possesion and therefore guilty?

[Rifleman1776]

The items just being on his property, under the Federal laws, constituted possession even if he had no knowledge what was in his shed. That's why I titled this thread "UN-just justice".