United States v. Eugene Cunningham
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15583, 166 U.S. App. D.C. 206, 509 F.2d 961 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual cannot forcibly resist a federal officer engaged in the good faith and colorable performance of their duties, even if the individual believes the officer's actions are unlawful. Forcible resistance under 18 U.S.C. § 111 requires a measure of presently applied physical force, rather than passive non-cooperation or threats of future action.
Facts:
- A district court issued an order for United States Marshals to escort the appellant, an inmate, to a police lineup.
- A supplemental court order authorized the marshals to take 'all actions deemed necessary' to ensure the appellant's presence in the lineup and the safety of the officers.
- Upon arriving at the lineup stage, the appellant refused to cooperate by turning to face the wall.
- When marshals forcibly turned him around, he lowered his chin to his chest to hide his face.
- After marshals forcibly raised his head, the appellant began kicking and thrashing.
- While shackled and handcuffed, he continued to kick and thrash, attempted to bite a marshal, spat on a police officer, shouted profanities, and urged fellow inmates to resist.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was convicted by a jury in a federal trial court for forcible resistance to federal officers.
- At the close of all evidence during the trial, the appellant made a motion for acquittal.
- The trial court judge denied the appellant's motion for acquittal.
- The appellant appealed his conviction to the appellate court.
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 defendant's physical opposition, including kicking, thrashing, and attempting to bite federal officers, constitute forcible resistance under 18 U.S.C. § 111 when the defendant claims the officers are exceeding their authority by compelling participation in a lineup?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the defendant's conduct constitutes forcible resistance. The court reasoned that even if the marshals had exceeded their authority, which they did not, a person must not forcibly resist federal officers who are acting in good faith and under the colorable performance of their duties. The statute requires peaceful submission, with any legal challenges to the officers' authority to be pursued in court afterward. The court held that the marshals were acting reasonably within the scope of the court order to 'assure the defendants' presence in the line.' Furthermore, the appellant's conduct—kicking, thrashing, biting, and spitting—clearly constituted the 'presently applied force' required by the statute, distinguishing it from passive non-compliance or mere threats. This level of resistance went far beyond a simple failure to cooperate and was sufficient to trigger the statute.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong legal principle that individuals must submit to the authority of federal officers and challenge any perceived misconduct through legal channels, not physical resistance. It clarifies that the protection afforded to federal officers under 18 U.S.C. § 111 is broad, applying even when the legality of the officer's specific action is debatable, so long as they are not on a 'frolic of their own.' The decision also provides a clearer distinction between passive non-cooperation and active, 'forcible' resistance, setting a precedent that acts like kicking, spitting, and thrashing, even by a restrained individual, meet the statutory requirement for a conviction.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Eugene Cunningham