Opinion ID: 2442859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Third and Fourth Prongs of Plain Error Analysis

Text: Convicting appellant solely for possessing handgun ammunition in his home, in violation of the Second Amendment, unquestionably affects his substantial rights. We also conclude that conviction of a criminal offense on constitutionally insufficient evidence, for conduct indistinguishable from the mere exercise of [a defendant's] Second Amendment right, [34] seriously impugns the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings, as well. The government resists the latter conclusion. It argues that there was no miscarriage of justice here because there is no dispute that appellant in fact lacked the legally necessary registration certificate for a handgun corresponding to the ammunition he possessed. (Appellant concedes as much in his brief on appeal.) We are unpersuaded by this argument. We do not doubt that the prosecution could have proved appellant's lack of registration at trial had it wished to do so. But the reason there is no dispute that appellant lacked a handgun registration certificate is that the District's law at the time unconstitutionally forbade the registration of handguns and made it impossible for appellant to register. As appellant rejoins, [t]o uphold [his] conviction under an unconstitutional statute because he was prevented by a different unconstitutional statute from obtaining a registration certificate would be the height of unfairness indeed. [35] It is no answer to say that appellant failed to show at trial that he would have been able to obtain a registration certificate but for the unconstitutional restriction, [36] for the prosecution never put his lack of a certificate in issue at trial. [37] The third and fourth requirements of plain error are met.