Court Opinion

ID: 9483596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:25:38.812391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:43.085112
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result because I must. In United States v. Driscoll, 970 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir.1992), the majority of the Sixth Circuit panel held that the State of Michigan does not restore a felon's civil rights after punishment because such a person cannot be a juror if challenged for cause in both civil and criminal cases, and “should” be excused as a juror by the trial court, sua sponte, in a criminal case. Id. at 1478-79. If it is determined that a state does not restore a felon’s civil rights, he or she is subject to being charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1988). See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (1988); United States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir.1990). Gilliam, convicted of a felony in Michigan, and later caught with a firearm in Michigan, thus may be charged with the federal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Though I am bound by Driscoll, see United States v. Wolak, 923 F.2d 1193, 1199 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2824, 115 L.Ed.2d 995 (1991) (“even if we agreed with the defendant, we could not overrule the decision of an earlier panel”), I reiterate my disagreement with the majority’s holding in that case. In my dissent in Driscoll, I maintained that “although a convicted person’s right to sit on a jury may be limited, I would hold that Michigan law does restore that right to such persons automatically after the period of incarceration is over.” Driscoll, 970 F.2d at 1487-88. For the reasons stated in my Driscoll dissent, I continue to be of this view. See id. at 1486-88.