|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 30, 2009, 11:02 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
The Supremes sing again: Dean v. United States
In this case, a masked man entered a bank, waved a gun, and yelled at everyone to get down. He then walked behind the teller counter and started removing money from the teller stations. He grabbed bills with his left hand, holding the gun in his right. At one point, he reached over a teller to remove money from her drawer. As he was collecting the money, the gun discharged, leaving a bullet hole in the partition between two stations. The robber cursed and dashed out of the bank. Witnesses later testified that he seemed surprised that the gun had gone off. No one was hurt.
Police arrested Christopher Michael Dean and Ricardo Curtis Lopez for the crime. Both defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit a robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of federal law, and aiding and abetting each other in using, carrying, possessing, and discharging a firearm during an armed robbery, also in violation of federal law. At trial, Dean admitted that he had committed the robbery, and a jury found him guilty on both the robbery and firearm counts. The District Court sentenced Dean to a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison on the firearm count, because the firearm “discharged” during the robbery. Dean appealed, contending that the discharge was accidental and that the sentencing enhancement in §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires proof that the defendant intended to discharge the firearm. Section 924(c)(1)(A) provides: “[A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime… uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime —The issue in the case was whether §924(c)(1)(A)(iii) contains a requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm. As the Chief Justice succinctly put it in the opening line of the court's opinion: Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns. The question here is whether extra punishment Congress imposed for the discharge of a gun during certain crimes applies when the gun goes off accidentally.The Supreme Court held yesterday that the extra punishment does apply. There is no requirement that the defendant intend to discharge the firearm. The extra punishment here is in addition to the punishment for the underlying crime. Mr. Dean will be spending many years behind bars. The decision was 7-2, and the two dissenters were Breyer and Stevens, who also dissented in D.C. v. Heller (finding the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership). |
April 30, 2009, 11:21 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I have yet to read the decision, but it appears to be a good one. The statute is unambiguous here. Did the firearm discharge during the commission of the underlying crime?
Seems the answer is, Yes. |
May 1, 2009, 03:12 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Didn't see the word "intent"
anywhere in the statute as quoted. Seems like a good decision.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
May 1, 2009, 03:18 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
__________________
grym |
|
May 1, 2009, 03:20 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
|
Quote:
Not here, though.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards." -George Orwell Last edited by B. Lahey; May 1, 2009 at 07:21 PM. |
|
May 1, 2009, 04:31 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Seems reasonable to me.
Anytime you bring a firearm into a crime, even lacking the intent to use it against anyone, there is a chance that it will discharge accidentally or cause someone to react violently to the threat on their own life. Chief Justice Roberts had it right in the majority opinion: Quote:
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
May 1, 2009, 05:16 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
|
thanks for this interesting thread. I'll have to read the opinion now.
|
May 2, 2009, 07:07 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-5274.ZS.html
I read the two dissents and then the opinion. All are short. The experience made me wonder why they even took the case. So silly. |
May 2, 2009, 09:59 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
|
Quote:
I am one of them, but there are exceptions. This is one of them, I think.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards." -George Orwell |
|
May 2, 2009, 10:15 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 220
|
It kind of reminds me of the Plaxico Buress case.
If someone discharges a firearm in public, intentionally or accidentally, with no unlawful threat toward them, there should be some kind of penalty. I'm not saying life in prison, but it shouldn't go ignored either. |
May 2, 2009, 10:22 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
|
I think they took it because there was a split in the circuit appeals courts or something.
Blackstone's quote in the middle of the majority opinion says it all. And I'm generally on the side of the defense. |
May 2, 2009, 10:23 AM | #12 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
May 2, 2009, 11:28 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Hmm...
How long have we had different Circuit opinions on the nature of the 2nd amendment? Since Emerson? |
May 3, 2009, 03:26 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
|
Long time, but 2A issues are much scarier for the court than sentencing issues
|
May 3, 2009, 03:30 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
In the Burris case there was no intent to harm, no crime other than a violation of unconstitutional gun law, and no victim. |
|
May 3, 2009, 03:45 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2006
Location: San Diego, Calif.
Posts: 717
|
Quote:
But everyone here should know that if you're doing nothing illegal, accidental actions generally can't be criminally held against you (unless they are grossly negligent). Once you've broken even the slightest law, then you're looking at possible strict liability for anything that goes wrong in the course of that action. For example: You bump into a person, he falls, hits his head on the curb, and dies. You may get sued but you won't be prosecuted. BUT, if you push him (battery), he falls, dies, you could be looking at manslaughter or negligent homicide. |
|
May 4, 2009, 01:19 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2008
Location: Cypress (North West Houston)
Posts: 157
|
wow
It is incredible what some lawyers will come up with.
If that bullet happened to strike and kill someone "accidentally" would his defense say that the client should not be charged with murder / man slaughter because the intention was to intimidate and not kill? Boy sometimes things like this make me sick. |
May 4, 2009, 11:44 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
|
Quote:
It's better than the phony claptrap some other nations have come up with where everybody pretends to be impartial.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards." -George Orwell |
|
May 4, 2009, 03:11 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
This could be very useful in establishing that the presence of firearms is not a crime, but requires commission of a crime for it to be anything wrong at all. GREAT stuff for working into an arguement in future cases defending carry rights.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
|
|