2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-19-2002

USA v. Paige

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 00-4406

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Paige" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 519.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/519
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 __________________ 

 

 No: 00-4406 

 _________________ 

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

 JOSEPH PAIGE 

 a/k/a 

 RICK PAIGE 

 

 Joseph Paige, 

 Appellant 

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Criminal Action No. 00-cr-00402) 

 District Judge: Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer 

 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 on March 22, 2002 

 

 Before: ROTH, NYGAARD 

 and AMBRO, Circuit Judges 

 

 (Opinion filed: August 19, 2002) 

 

 _______________ 

 O P I N I O N 

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge: 

 Joseph Paige appeals the September 19, 2000, Order of the District Court, which 

granted the government’s motion in limine to preclude Paige from offering a justification 

defense at trial. Following the barring of the justification defense, Paige entered a guilty 

plea but reserved the right to appeal the District Court’s ruling on the defense. Paige 

contends on appeal that the District Court erred in ruling that his offer of proof on the 

affirmative justification defense was insufficient as a matter of law. We have jurisdiction 

to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. 

 Paige was convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). His response to the indictment was that he was legally 

justified in possessing the firearm because of a threat of danger to his person. In United 

States v. Paolello, 951 F.2d 537 (3d Cir. 1991), we adopted a four prong test to consider 

the adequacy of a justification defense. Following the Paolello test, the District Court 
case required Paige in advance of trial to submit evidence to support his justification 

claim. The District Court found that the proffered facts failed to support a justification 

defense and granted the government’s motion to bar the defense. 

 We conclude that Paige did fail to meet the second and third elements of the 

Paolello test. He did not demonstrate that he had not recklessly placed himself in the 

situation which led to the criminal act, the second Paolello element. In addition, he did 

not show that he had no reasonable legal alternative both to the criminal act and to the 

situation which caused the threat of harm, the third Paolello element. 

 The District Court found that Paige fell "far short" of proving these elements 

that at a minimum he acted recklessly and that this created the situation which led him to 

acquire the firearm rather than to choose from a number of alternative courses of action. 

The District Court did not err as a matter of law in so finding. 

 For the aforementioned reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court. 

 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Opinion. 

 By the Court, 

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge