Yup, which is exactly what these guys did.
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.
Sutton can't alter the language of any statute. Only Congress can do that.
The most he can do is misrepresent it in his arguments, and you seem to be claiming he did this. Unfortunately, neither the judge nor the defense counsel seem to agree with you, as neither attempted to correct this alleged misrepresentation during the trial, as they both had ample opportunity to do.
Face it. You're grasping at straws.
Yup, which is exactly what these guys did.
Except that LEO's are specifically required to carry firearms are part of their duties and are authorized to use those firearms ( that's why they issued the firearms in the first place ). This was problematic for Sutton which is precisely why he changed the wording of the statute to facilitate the conviction of the agents.
Sutton can't alter the language of any statute. Only Congress can do that.
Agreed. Well, at least in theory. But that doesn't stop some prosecutors from misstating the original law in court. And Sutton did alter the wording of the statute. The agents were not actually convicted of "using", or "carrying", a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, but of "illegally discharging" a firearm. The particular wording of a statute can make the difference between a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict.
Judge Cardone was in over her head. Her she had been working as a Judge in Family Court for years and was a relative newcomer to the Federal Bench.
And there have been prosecutors that actually have altered the original wording of the 924-c statute to obtain convictions in court. But the courts have frowned upon this sort of thing. See United States v. Barton, Harris v. United States, and even United States v. McGilberry. The Supreme Court has upheld this view of the law ( in Harris ) where it ruled that the 924(c) statute did not define "discharge" of a firearm as a separate offense, but only as a "sentencing factor" to be considered by the trial judge after conviction.
There were precedents that would have fully supported the overturning of the convictions under the 924-c law but they didn't do it. That's what made the Fifth Circuit's ruling all the more tragic.
Face it. You're grasping at straws.
Nope, just stating the truth. This case was a miscarriage of justice from the beginning. Deal with it.