Opinion ID: 1893409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: United States v. Moore

Text: The majority opinion specifically states that its authors agree [62] with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States v. Moore, 158 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 486 F.2d 1139, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 980, 94 S. Ct. 298, 38 L.Ed.2d 224 (1973). Rather than repeat each argument made in that 121-page decision, I shall merely state that I agree with the views expressed by Judge Wright and his fellow dissenters. Moreover, it is important to note that the present vitality of the 5-4 Moore decision is extremely suspect. Of the five judges who voted to affirm the conviction for possession, only three did so on the ground that the proffered drug dependence defense was invalid. [63] The other two judges who voted to affirm the conviction, Judges McGowan and Leventhal, [64] did not reach the issue of the validity of the proffered defense because they believed that Congress had decided that treatment for drug dependence was to be handled as a matter of disposition under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (NARA). Subsequently the United States Supreme Court held that NARA's exclusion from treatment of those persons with two prior felony convictions [65] is constitutional. [66] Because a large number of drug dependent persons have two prior convictions and would thus be excluded from treatment, [67] it may be now that the two judges who voted against recognizing the drug dependence defense, on the ground that treatment under NARA was available, would not vote the same way if the issue were presented to them again.