Opinion ID: 3051432
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Blockburger Test and Affirmative Defenses

Text: The majority’s formalistic application of the Blockburger test looks only at the elements of each crime. In my view, we need not turn a blind eye to all affirmative defenses that do not negate an element of the crime. I would join the only circuits 2672 UNITED STATES v. DAVENPORT to have addressed the issue and hold that affirmative defenses are part of the analysis. United States v. Franchi-Forlando, 838 F.2d 585, 591 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. OrtizAlarcon, 917 F.2d 651, 653 (1st Cir. 1990) (following Franchi-Forlando); United States v. Gomez-Ruiz, 931 F.2d 977, 979-80 (1st Cir. 1991) (same); United States v. Ahad, 985 F.2d 554, 1993 WL 27384,  (4th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition)1 (expressly adopting the reasoning and holding of Franchi-Forlando); see also United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting, in a different context, the argument that the term “element” should not encompass an affirmative defense as a “formalistic reading” of the term “element”). Suppose these facts: John Doe ordered and received two images of child pornography. He immediately regretted his curiosity; an hour later, he shredded one image and took the other to the nearest police station. Under the present version of the statutes, John Doe is guilty of receiving child pornography, notwithstanding the small number of images and the buyer’s remorse, but he is not guilty of possessing child pornography. As I read Blockburger, we simply examine the text of the statutory provisions to see whether the crime of possession requires proof of a fact that the crime of receipt does not. The crime of possession requires proof that the defendant possessed three or more images or failed to delete the images or inform the police about them. Receipt does not require proof of any of those facts. Thus, the crime of possession requires proof of a fact that the crime of receipt does not. That’s all there is to it.2 1 Unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit may be cited for their persuasive value, regardless of the date of publication. 4th Cir. R. 32.1.0. 2 In practice, the government must take account of the affirmative defense. If a prosecutor knew for certain that the affirmative defense applies (as in my John Doe hypothetical), the government could not ethically charge John Doe with the crime of possession. UNITED STATES v. DAVENPORT 2673