I agree with you. The main problem with this case was the law that requires a mandatory minimum of 10 years for using a firearm in connection with a federal crime. At the very least, there should be an explicit exemption for LEOs, though I'm not a fan of manadatory minimums in general and wouldn't mind seeing it repealed.
A lot of people blamed Sutton for the excessive sentence, but it's not his fault. It's Congress's fault for writing the statute that way.
Unfortunately, this has gotten lost and I fear more LEO's will get treated similarly to these guys in the future.
A lot of people blamed Sutton for the excessive sentence, but it's not his fault. It's Congress's fault for writing the statute that way.
The statute is for people who "use, carry, or possess," a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Sutton deliberately altered the language of the statute and replaced the language in the statute with language from the sentencing guidelines and charged them with "illegally discharging" a firearm in relation to a crime a violence. Thus, he created a purported criminal offense which was never actually enacted into law by Congress. There have been rulings by the appellate courts that have said that prosecutors are not supposed to do this kind of thing with the staute.
Sutton demanded strict adherence to the wording of the statute because it allowed him to use the statute in a way that was never intended by Congress while simultaneously arguing that he be allowed to alter the wording of the statute because that also allowed him to use the statute in a way that was never intended by Congress.
It's clearly a case of eating your cake and having it too.
Sutton altered (or misstated) the statute because it obviously facilitated his conviction of the agents. LEO's are specifically required to carry and possess firearms as part of their duties. They have no choice. Again, this was the reason Sutton misstated the wording of the law to the jurors.
In order to justify the conviction under the agents, Mark Stelmach (Sutton's rep) told the Fifth Circuit that an LEO could still be charged with the 924-c statute if he became overzealous in apprehending a criminal by simple virtue of the fact that he is in"possession" of, or "carrying" a gun. So, in other words, even if an officer never removes his gun from his holster, he can still be charged with the 924-c statute simply because he happens to be in "possession" of a firearm. This is what Stelmach argued. And, frankly, he had to, - in order to justify the use of the statute against the agents.
Needless to say, that's insane. And, sadly, the Fifth Circuit flinched when it was gut check time. They dropped the ball, big time.
The Jurors also were never told of the ten year mandatories connected with a conviction under the 924-c. If they had been, they probably wouldn't have found them guilty under those charges. Several jurors have come forward and said as much.