Court Opinion

ID: 9491155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:05:10.60838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:32.600378
License: Public Domain

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The district court’s charge concerning unlawful use was improper under Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). Therefore, under the requirements of due process, the jury was prohibited from convicting Munoz of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) absent a court instruction on the remaining statutory element of unlawful carrying. Among the many authorities on this point, see the following:
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444, 63 U.S.L.W. 4611, 4615 (1995)
The Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged;
Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 265, 109 S.Ct. 2419, 2420, 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (per curiam)
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment denies States the power to deprive the accused of liberty, unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged offense. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, *63890 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Jury instructions relieving States of this burden violate á defendant’s due process rights. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). Such directions- subvert the presumption of innocence accorded to accused persons and also invade the truth-finding task assigned solely to juries in criminal cases;
United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 1131, 1134 (2d Cir.1974)
As we said only- last year:
“If justice is to be done in accordance with the rule of law, it is of paramount importance that the court’s instructions be clear, accurate, complete and comprehensible, particularly with respect to the essential elements of the alleged crime that must be proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt____”
United States v. Clark, 475 F.2d 240, 248 (2d Cir.1973). See also Byrd v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 342 F.2d 939 (1965). When Howard exercised his constitutional right to a jury, he put the Government to the burden of proving the elements of the crimes charged to á jury’s satisfaction, not to ours or to the district judge’s. Thus, even if we bélieve that there was overwhelming proof of the elements not charged, we must still reverse.
The district court not only failed to charge the jury on the “carrying” element; it instructed the jury to disregard it:
Now, I have to give you some matters of definition. I think to simplify things I am going to ask you to look at the third line where it says, “did use and carry.” Ignore the word “carry.” I am simply going to instruct you about use. The question is did the defendant use the firearms, or any of them, during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes.
Because of the great variety of definitions that can be applied to the term “carry,” see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 343 (1971),we should exercise care to see that the term “carries,” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), is not interpreted in such a manner that it becomes synonymous with the pre-Bailey definition of “use.” Carrying is a separate offense' and should be charged as such.' This was done in United States v. Pimentel, 83 F.3d 55 (2d Cir.1996), United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d 667 (2d Cir.1996) and United States v. Feliz-Cordero, 859 F.2d 250 (2d Cir.1988), the cases on which my colleagues rely.