Case o' The Week: Short rifles, short decision, and shorted on mens rea - Woodberry and Mens Rea for Section 924(c) offenses
Prepare
to pucker, on a sour Woodberry.
United States v. Woodberry, 2021 WL 506091 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2021), decision
available here.
Players: Decision by Judge Gould, joined by Judge Friedland and WD MO DJ Bough.
Facts: Woodberry and Johnson, who were armed, robbed a marijuana dispensary. Id. at *1. Police later recovered a short-barreled rifle. Id. at *2.
The men were charged with, among other things, a Section 924(c)(1) (B)(i) count for using
a short-barreled rifle during a crime of violence. Id. (This Section
924(c) count triggered a ten-year mand-mind. Id. at *4).
Over defense objection, the jury was instructed that it could convict if
the gun’s length was under 16 inches (with no requirement that the defendants
knew the rifle was short. Id.
The men were convicted, and appealed.
Issue(s): “Defendants . . . challenge the district court's jury instruction regarding the short-barreled rifle provision in § 924(c)(1) (B)(i). They argue that because the short-barreled rifle provision contains a mens rea requirement, the district court should have instructed the jury to convict only if Defendants knew that the rifle barrel was less than sixteen inches long.” Id. at *4 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
Held: Holding One: “Applying . . . Alleyne, we hold that the short-barrel provision in § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) is an essential element that must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
Holding
Two: “We see no reason to
apply the mens rea presumption here, in part because the statute in
question does not penalize ‘entirely innocent’ conduct.” Id. at *6
(citation omitted). “At its core, this case calls for no more than a straightforward
application of Dean. We hold that § 924(c)(1) (B)(i) requires no showing of mens rea as to the rifle
barrel’s length to sustain a conviction.” Id. at *7.
Of Note: Woodberry crams a number of disappointing holdings into a short opinion. The decision’s lead issue is whether robbing a marijuana dispensary is, effectively, a per se impact on interstate commerce that triggers commerce clause jurisdiction for Hobbes Act cases. See id. at *3.
Extending the Supreme Court’s 2016 Taylor decision, the Ninth holds “(1) that the market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction, and (2) that the commerce element of a Hobbs Act robbery could be established if the robbery could affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” Id. at *4 (quotations and citations omitted).
A frustrating decision to mull when defending Hobbes Act cases.
How to Use: In this appeal the government kept referring to the short-barreled provision in Section 924(c) as a “sentencing ‘enhancement,’” rather than an element. Id. at *4.
The government was wrong.
Judge Gould takes this opportunity to clarify
that, after Alleyne, this factual requirement is an essential element
that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.
Sadly, after Woodberry this is an element stripped of any meaningful mens rea requirement. Nonetheless, for future Section 924(c) cases, these are now clearly facts that must be alleged in the indictment, and that the jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt.
For Further Reading: President Biden campaigned on criminal justice reform. In a compelling new OpEd, two Federal Defenders describe the many unilateral measures that the Administration should immediately take to deliver on these campaign promises. See Lisa Freeland and David Patton¸ The Biden Administration Can Act on Criminal Justice Act Reform Now, available here.
Here in NorCal, U.S. Attorney David Anderson (appointed by President Trump), has announced that he will step down by the end of the month. See article here.
As main
Justice aggressively unwinds Trump policies (and implements the new Biden /
Harris priorities), it will be interesting to see how quickly these big changes
are felt here in NorCal and the Ninth.
Image
of “Woodberry” from https://uksignshop.co.uk/woodberry
Steven Kalar, Federal
Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
.
Labels: Commerce Clause, Gould, Hobbs Act, Jurisdiction, Mens Rea
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home