Olson and Brewer lay out what kind of malfeasance Sutton's office committed. First, as they point out, Sutton deliberately changed the wording of the statute in order to prosecute the agents :
" A. Each of Counts Four and Five of the Indictment Contains an Erroneous Allegation of the Offense Defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A).In McGilberry, this Court ruled that, in order to charge a crime under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), an indictment must allege that a defendant either has use[d] or carrie[d] a firearm ... during and in relation to any [crime of violence] or has possess[ed] a firearm in furtherance of such a crime. McGilberry, 480 F.3d at 329 (emphasis added). Conspicuously absent from this ruling is any mention that an indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A) would be sufficient if it alleged that a defendant dischargeda firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, such as was alleged in Counts Four and Five of the indictment in this case.
Indeed, six years before McGilberry, this Court ruled that discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence was not an actus reus element of the offense defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), but only a sentencing factor. See United States v. Barton, 257 F.3d 433, 441-43 (5th Cir. 2001).
One year after Barton, the Supreme Court affirmed this 5th Circuit rule, concluding that 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A) defines a single crime, namely, the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or the possession of a firearm in furtherance of such a crime. See Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 550-53 (2002).
In Harris, the Supreme Court determined that 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), which referred to the discharge of a firearm, did not define a separate offense. Rather, it ruled that subsection (iii), like its companions (i) and (ii), identified only certain sentencing factors to be considered by the trial judge after conviction of the offense that is fully defined in the paragraph immediately preceding subsection (i). Id., 536 U.S. at 552-54.
Sutton deliberately misstated the statute to the Grand Jury to obtain indictments :
"In disregard of these definitive rulings, the prosecution in this case obtained from the Grand Jury an indictment setting forth Counts Four and Five, which charged Defendants with the crime of having knowingly discharged a firearm ... during and in relation to a crime of violence.... Document No. 66, p. 3, 1R-119-126 (emphasis added).Having misstated the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), Counts Four and Five failed to charge either Defendant with any criminal offense whatsoever. See McGilberry, 480 F.3d at 329 and Barton, 257 F.3d at 443."
Olson and Brewer elaborate further :
"B. The Misdescription in Counts Four and Five of the Offense Defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A) Was Plainly Erroneous.Even before the United States Supreme Court decided Harris, and years prior to the indictment and trial of Defendants Ramos and Compean, this Circuit ruled that the discharge of a firearm was neither an element of the offense defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A) nor a separate offense defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), but was only a sentencing factor. See United States v. Barton, 257 F.3d 433, 441-43 (5th Cir. 2001).
Notwithstanding those pertinent precedents, the prosecution in this case erased that well-established distinction, substituting discharge for one of the statutorily-identified actus reus elements use, carry, and possess. As was true in McGilberry, where the prosecution erroneously combined the possession prong of the statute with the during and in relation to prong, it was plain error for the prosecution to combine the during and in relation to prong with the discharge factor, thereby creating a purported criminal offense never enacted into law by Congress. See McGilberry, 480 F.3d at 329-30."
Then Olson and Brewer show that the Court's instructions to the Jury were in error :
"Not only did the prosecution misdescribe in Counts Four and Five of the indictment the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), the trial court misdirected the jury.
First, the court erroneously told the jury that Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1), makes it a crime for anyone to discharge a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. See Jury Instructions, pp. 27-28; 2R424-425 (emphasis added).
As pointed out in sections II. A. and B. above, that instruction to the jury is flatly contradicted by Harris, Barton, and McGilberry.
Second, having misdescribed the elements of the offense, the trial court erroneously directed the jury that to find the defendant[s] guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proven ... beyond a reasonable doubt ... [t]hat the defendant[s] knowingly discharged a firearm during and in relation to one or more of the crimes charged in Count One, Two or Three. Jury Instructions, pp. 28-29; 2R425-26 (emphasis added).
By this instruction, the trial court invited the jury to return a verdict of guilty not based any actus reus element of the offense defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), but on a mens rea element disconnected from any actus reus specified in the offense."
Here Olson and Brewer get to the real heart of the matter :
" And by instructing the jury that the offenses charged in Counts I, II, and III were crimes of violence, and that it only need to find that the firearm had some purpose, role, or effect with respect to those crimes, the trial court deprived Defendants of their constitutional right to have the jury decide whether the Defendants use or carrying of the firearms was during and in relation to a crime of violence or during and in relation to their employment as Border Patrol Agents. See United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572 (1977)"
Sorry about the length of this post. But these are critical arguments.
An argument can be made that the BP agents have yet to be charged with actually violating statute 924(c)(1)(A).
Brewer’s arguments are brilliant. That is the same brief I’ve posted that is hosted on Gun Owners Of America’s website:
http://www.gunowners.com/amicus10.pdf
§ 924. Penalties
(a)...
(b)...
(c)
Great stuff. Eventually, if there is truly any justice, Sutton’s machinations will be revealed as illegal and unethical and will be rebuked.