On October 9, 2007, the Court will hear oral arguments in Watson v. US.

Watson revolves around the question of whether or not the presence of a firearm in a drug exchange consitutes ‘use’ as it applies to sentencing provisions. If an individual is convicted of using a firearm within the context of a drug deal, a mandatory sentence must be added to their sentence. 18 U.S.C 924(c)(1)(a) reads:

… [A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime … uses or carries a firearm, or … possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—

    (i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
    (ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
    (iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

In 1993, the Supreme Court held in Smith v. US that trading guns for drugs does constitute ‘use’ under Section 924. The vote in Smith was 6-3, with Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Souter dissenting.

In 1996, the Court unanimously held in Bailey v. US that simple possession of a gun did not constitute ‘use’ under Section 924. Defendant Bailey was convicted of gun possession under Section 924 when officers found a gun stashed in a bag in the trunk of his car after cocaine was found during a routine traffic stop. Bailey differed from Smith in the fact that guns had been traded in Smith while guns were simply present at the scene of the crime in Bailey. In Bailey the Court held that:

Section 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense. Evidence of the proximity and accessibility of the firearm to drugs or drug proceeds is not alone sufficient to support a conviction for “use” under the statute.

Based on the Court’s analysis in Bailey it is obvious that a multi-tier punishment structure was not in place when defendent Bailey committed the crime in question. Justice O’Connor clarifies that “[t]he active employment understanding of “use” certainly includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and most obviously, firing or attempting to fire, a firearm” but her analysis is irrelevant now that the new sentencing structure has made those different categories. A 1995 article (JSTOR subscription required) in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology includes a rather detailed amendment history of Section 924 but makes no mention of the inclusion of new classifications for brandishing and discharging a weapon. A Sixth Circuit ruling from 2000 includes the multi-tier system.

It appears as though the Court has accepted review in this case in order to clarify a very clear circuit split. Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Souter may also believe that they have gained the necessary votes to overturn the Court’s ruling in Smith 14 years ago.

In my opinion, the fact that the statute takes into account the ‘active deployment’ of a firearm as a specific instance means that the simpler act of possessing a firearm is enough to define ‘use.’ If it were not, the mandatory 5-year imprisonment would be irrelevant to sentencing structures. This statute has very specifically set aside three classes of weapons possession: (1) possession, (2) presentation, and (3) employment. The Court should dispose of this case very easily. I expect to see this case be one of the first decided and the Court will hand down its ruling in mid-November.

You can always find more information about upcoming cases before the court at our 2007 Term Case Index.


2 Responses to “Looking Ahead to Watson v. US”

  1. 1 Michael Allen

    Splitting hairs in law only serves to prove my point. It takes two lawyers and a judge to decide what the people are expected to already know. Of course a jury will decide guilt or innocence. But, the judge will determine sentencing after the lawyers have done their jobs. And that is always constant, the only thing constant in law. If a man has a gun, pulls the gun out or uses the gun, what’s the difference? It was a drug deal. Our laws are already stiff on the war against drugs.

  2. 2 Bochicko Savy

    I am doing court cases for my government class. I was presented this case about a week ago. I am considered the Chief Justice in our role play therefore all i have been doing the past week is reading about Watson v. U.S. The first thing i’d like to bring to attention is the fact that i do not belive that Watson should get full sentencing for use of a weapon when the weapon has not been fired or brandished. He simply needed the gun, and delivered what he could to get it. I believe he should get a sentence for having a weapon without a permit and intent to distribute, but i believe that’s as far as this case should go. People these days take things too literally. I mean, this isn’t that big of a deal. These types of things happen all of the time. Many people have weapons that do not have permits, instead of trying to justify and specify what the word use means, I say we just come to an agreement of the word “use” so that these cases can be easily dealt with for future references. An analogy for example, Buy anything, what’s on the back? Directions, the reason there is directions is so you can properly “USE” the item that you have recieved..You dont officially USE the item untill you put something in motion, therefore, i belive the word use in this case should be considered pulling the trigger or brandishing.

    Thankyou.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Nearly Final Term Statistics and Advocate Scorecard: My goal was to publish the final term statistics today, but because the Court will hear rearguments in Citzens United and likely issue an op...
  • First Opinion Stats: As we wait for the first opinion of the term, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the first signed opinion released in recen...
  • Change is Fun But...: I'm sad to see Justice Stevens leave the Court for a variety of reasons that have been well documented by people smarter than me. I'm also e...
  • More Sophisticated Reconferencing Statistics: A commentator on my last conferencing post picked up on an important part of the distribution question that I had intentionally omitted....
  • Advocate Watch: With the Term quickly approaching it's midway point, we can take a look at which advocates have made the biggest mark on the Term. Hearing L...