Brief encourages "rule of lenity" in gun case
One of the most disputed criminal laws is the federal gun statute, found at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This spring it was once again at the center of a challenge in the United States Supreme Court in Dean v. United States, No. 08-5274.
The federal gun statute sets out three mandatory minimums for firearm use. A person convicted of possessing a gun during or in relation to a drug crime or crime of violence must be sentenced to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, above and beyond the sentence for the drug or violent crime. If the weapon is brandished, the mandatory minimum increases to seven years, and if it is discharged, the sentence increases to 10 years.
FAMM, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders joined in an amicus (friend of the court) brief, explaining why the Supreme Court should rule on behalf of Christopher Michael Dean and reduce his mandatory 10-year sentence to seven years. It was undisputed that Mr. Dean, while robbing a bank, accidently fired the gun he was brandishing. The issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the law requires the defendant to have intended to shoot the gun or if a mere accident is enough to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum for firing the weapon.
Traditionally, criminal law requires that a person cannot be punished for an offense unless he has the “mens rea” – the guilty mind or wrongful purpose – to commit the offense. A mens rea requirement is particularly essential in the case of mandatory minimum sentences because without it, the judge is prohibited from imposing the sentence that fits the offense, even if the judge believes the defendant does not deserve a 10-year sentence for an accident.
The arguments in this case centered on whether Congress intended a mens rea requirement for the 10-year mandatory minimum and, if not whether it should be presumed to be required. The statute sets out a stepping stone series of mandatory minimums, ranging from less to more severe depending on the severity of the offense. Congress clearly required intent for the possession (five-year) and brandishing (seven-year) sections in the wording of the statute. FAMM’s brief argued “[w]ith respect to the less severe penalties, it is undisputed that Congress has required intent. In that context, it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend to impose the most severe penalty on accidental conduct.”
The FAMM brief encouraged the Supreme Court to look at the gun statute in the context of the requirement of the generic sentencing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which directs a court to consider the “circumstances of the offense,” among other considerations. One circumstance that the judge would consider is whether the discharge was intentional. If the court does not agree that the statute on its own requires mens rea before the 10-year mandatory minimum can be imposed, we argued that the law is at least ambiguous. Ambiguous laws that impose different penalties depending on how they are interpreted must be read in the way most favorable to the defendant. Applying this “rule of lenity” would result in lowering the sentence from ten years to seven years for brandishing the gun.
FAMM gratefully acknowledges David Salmons and Robert B. Zener from the Washington D.C. law firm of Bingham McCutchen LLP and the guiding hand of Peter Goldberger, dean of our Litigation Advisory Board.
The Dean case was argued on March 4 and an opinion was delivered in May.