Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

possession of the Bryco semi-automatic pistol and the drug trafficking crime charged in Count Six

Raj Kumar Makkad ,
  26 May 2010       Share Bookmark

Court :
US SUPREME COURT
Brief :
Withdrawal of guilt plea - Interpretation - "Possession in furtherance" of - Appellant admitted purchase of the guns for cocaine and cash - Pleaded guilty for six counts - Sixth Count charged him with knowing possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) - Earlier SC had decided Watson v. United States holding that receiving a firearm in a trade for guns did not constitute "use" of the weapon within the ordinary meaning of the word, and so did not fall within that language of § 924(c)(1)(A) - Defendant moved to vacate his guilty plea as to Count Six urging Watson had a direct impact on the viability of the charge - District Court denied - Hence present Appeal - Whether defendant who exchanges drugs for guns "possesses" the guns "in furtherance" of a drug trafficking crime within the meaning of said section? - 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
Citation :
USA v. William Gurka, US Court of Appeals For the First Circuit (Decided on 12.05.2010)

Held, as originally enacted, § 924(c)(1)(A) applied only to a defendant who "used or carried a firearm" "during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime. Congress added the "possession in furtherance" prong to the text in 1998, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that mere possession of a gun in the vicinity of a drug transaction did not constitute "use" under § 924(c)(1)(A), Had Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability under § 924(c)(1), it easily could have so provided.

The Court had earlier held that § 924(c)(1)(A)'s "use" provision applied to a defendant who bartered a firearm for drugs. (Smith v. United States). Watson clarified that the term "use" did not extend to the opposite situation, in which a defendant exchanged drugs for guns. Watson noted Congress's amendment to add the "possession in furtherance" prong of the statute, but explicitly did not address the amended statute's application to such exchanges.

For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), "we have understood 'in furtherance of' to demand showing a sufficient nexus between the firearm and the drug crime such that the firearm advances or promotes the drug crime." On the facts to which Defendant pled guilty, there was an ample nexus between his possession of the Bryco semi-automatic pistol and the drug trafficking crime charged in Count Six. Appeal dismissed.

      

 
"Loved reading this piece by Raj Kumar Makkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Criminal Law
Views : 1095




Comments