Appellate Law

CA1: guns+drugs, in criminal law, do mix (and defendants lose)

By S. COTUS

US v. Marin, No. 06-1912.  This is a 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c) (firearm ?in furtherance of drug trafficking? conviction).  Now, in light of Heller, the law might be different.  There was a gun in the bedroom, but nobody saw him carry it or use it to buy drugs.  Despite the need for certainty in criminal law, the First has no problem saying   The "?in furtherance of? element does not have a settled, inelastic, definition.?  Got it.  So it means whatever a court reviewing a conviction say it means regardless of what the jury thought it means.  The First seems to stretch to say that because the gun was in the bedroom, it could be easily accessed at night, and therefore, the jury could have inferred that he had it to protect his drugs.  But, this doesn?t end the bending.  A DEA agent said that it ?was obvious? why he had the gun and therefore the agent didn?t ask the defendant why.  The defendant says this violates FRE 702, but the First says that on redirect the government managed to turn it into something other than expert testimony.

A bunch of stuff was found in the defendant?s home.  All of it came in despite FRE 404 objections.  The most notable is the reference to ?Scarface? memorabilia, but the First says that the defense opened the door for that.  Secondly, an incident with a billyclub isn?t too prejudicial, becuase it shows what the defendant would have done to keep up his drug trade

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on April 11, 2008 (boomark / email).