Brown v. United States
256 U.S. 335 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who reasonably believes they are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from an assailant is not required to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, especially when they are in a place where they have a right to be.
Facts:
- There was a long-standing history of conflict between the petitioner, Brown, and the victim, Hermes.
- Hermes had previously assaulted Brown with a knife on two separate occasions.
- Hermes had made threats, which were communicated to Brown, that in their next encounter, one of them would 'go off in a black box.'
- On the day of the killing, Brown was at his place of work, a federal excavation site for a post office, where he was a supervisor.
- Due to Hermes's threats, Brown brought a pistol with him and placed it in his coat on a dump pile at the site.
- Hermes arrived at the work site, and after Brown told him not to remove certain earth, Hermes advanced toward Brown.
- According to Brown, Hermes advanced on him with a knife.
- Brown retreated approximately 20 to 25 feet to his coat, retrieved his pistol, and as Hermes continued to strike at him, Brown fired four shots, killing Hermes.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner, Brown, was tried for murder in a federal trial court for a homicide committed on land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that a person asserting self-defense has an obligation to retreat so long as retreat is safely open to him.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Brown of murder in the second degree.
- Brown (as appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals (with the United States as appellee) affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Brown's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who reasonably fears imminent death or great bodily harm have an absolute duty to retreat, if a safe retreat is possible, before using deadly force in self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No. A person facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm is not under an obligation to retreat before exercising the right to self-defense. The long-standing common law rule requiring retreat has tended to 'ossify into specific rules without much regard for reason.' The court held that failure to retreat is merely a circumstance to be considered by the jury in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's actions, not a categorical requirement for a valid self-defense claim. The Court reasoned that 'detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.' Citing Beard v. United States, the court affirmed that a person who is not the aggressor and is in a place they have a right to be does not need to consider whether they could safely flee before using deadly force to repel a deadly attack.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Clarke
This opinion did not provide a written rationale. The justices simply noted their dissent from the majority's conclusion.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered the doctrine of self-defense in American federal law by rejecting the rigid common law 'duty to retreat.' It established what is now widely known as a 'stand your ground' principle, which holds that an innocent person has no duty to retreat when facing a deadly threat in a place they are lawfully present. This decision shifted the focus from the possibility of escape to the reasonableness of the defendant's fear and actions in the heat of the moment. The ruling has profoundly influenced state laws on self-defense, providing a foundational precedent for many modern 'stand your ground' statutes across the United States.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. United States