United States v. Johnson
977 F.2d 1360 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple convictions for possessing an unregistered machine gun under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) after Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) making such registration impossible; it also prohibits multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if the jury's verdict does not clearly link each firearms offense to a distinct underlying drug trafficking crime. Furthermore, a self-defense instruction is generally not warranted for a § 924(c) charge, as the statute's intent is to deter any association of firearms with illegal drug activities.
Facts:
- In the spring of 1990, Oklahoma State Game Ranger Dekota Cagle heard automatic weapon fire and smelled amphetamine near a cabin in the Kiamichi Mountain area, and along with Ranger D.G. Belcher, observed appellants in the vicinity.
- In April 1990, United States Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer Eugene Norvell saw a man in a white laboratory coat outside the cabin, and on a subsequent visit, smelled phenylacetic acid (a precursor for amphetamine) and heard a generator running, leading to an investigation.
- Hidden video-tape surveillance of the cabin area showed Behrens, Johnson, and Summerlin near the cabin.
- On July 27, 1990, Special Agent Dennis Bryant, Agent Jeff Fulton, and Deputy United States Marshal Thomas Hammon conducted surveillance near the cabin, where Jerry Spears, carrying an automatic Colt AR-15 rifle and a .9 mm Smith and Wesson pistol, approached Agent Bryant and Deputy Hammon, stating, 'Hold it right there.'
- Spears was disarmed and indicated that three men were inside the house, then complied with agents' request to call for his son, Scott Spears, to come out.
- Agent Bryant saw at least three men around the west end of the house taking positions behind trees, with at least two carrying long guns, and shouted to Johnson that they were federal agents and he was under arrest, whereupon Johnson ran into the woods.
- Edward Summerlin then stepped out of the east door of the cabin and fired a burst of automatic gunfire at Agent Bryant, and Clay Johnson also fired a burst of gunfire (believed to be an AK-47) at Agent Bryant, who returned fire.
- By July 28, 1990, all defendants were apprehended and arrested, and a search of the cabin after obtaining a warrant revealed numerous firearms, ammunition, explosives, amphetamine, precursor chemicals, laboratory equipment, and marijuana plants.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Clay Dalton Johnson, Jerry Duane Spears, Harold Onee Behrens, and Edward Dale Summerlin for multiple counts related to manufacturing, possession, and distribution of drugs, and possession of firearms.
- The defendants appeared before a United States Magistrate on July 30, 1990.
- The district court held a detention hearing on August 2, 1990.
- The district court held a preliminary hearing on August 7, 1990.
- The defendants were arraigned on August 29, 1990.
- The district court held a suppression hearing on September 14, 1990, where Johnson's motion for a continuance was denied.
- Following a trial during mid-October 1990, a jury returned guilty verdicts against appellants Johnson, Spears, Behrens, and Summerlin on numerous counts.
- Appellants Clay Dalton Johnson, Jerry Duane Spears, Harold Onee Behrens, and Edward Dale Summerlin appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Double Jeopardy Clause prevent conviction for possessing an unregistered machine gun under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) when subsequent legislation (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) prohibits its registration? 2. Does the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibit multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying firearms during drug trafficking when the underlying drug offenses for each count are the same or overlapping, and the jury does not explicitly link each firearm charge to a distinct underlying drug offense? 3. Is a self-defense jury instruction warranted for a charge of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Tacha, Circuit Judge
1. Yes, the convictions for possessing an unregistered machine gun under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) must be vacated. The court reasoned that Congress's enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) in 1986, which prohibits the possession of machine guns transferred after 1986, made it impossible to lawfully register such a weapon. Following United States v. Dalton, the court determined that § 922(o) removed the constitutional basis for the registration requirement of the National Firearms Act, which was originally passed pursuant to Congress's taxing power. Since the government will no longer register or tax machine guns, the premise of the registration requirement is undermined, rendering convictions under § 5861(d) unconstitutional on due process grounds. 2. No, multiple convictions for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violations cannot stand if the offenses underlying each § 924(c) count do not constitute distinct offenses for double jeopardy purposes. The court noted its circuit law prohibits stacking multiple § 924(c) sentences based on a single underlying drug offense. Referencing decisions from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, the court emphasized that to avoid Double Jeopardy violations, each firearms offense must be sufficiently linked to a separate drug trafficking offense. Because the indictment in this case referenced the same or overlapping drug offenses for multiple § 924(c) counts (Counts 11, 12, and 15), and it was impossible to determine if the jury based each conviction on a distinct underlying drug offense, the court vacated the sentences on Counts 12 and 15. The conviction on Count 11, related to the use of a machine gun, was preserved due to its more serious nature. 3. No, a self-defense jury instruction is not warranted for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The clear intent of § 924(c)(1), which punishes using or carrying a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, is to deter any association of firearms with illegal activities such as drug trafficking. The court affirmed that drug traffickers often carry firearms for protection, and this motivation does not negate the unlawful use of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the appellants armed themselves only after seeing federal agents, but rather that firearms were already readily accessible and were discharged after the presence of law enforcement officials was known. Therefore, the district court properly rejected the self-defense instruction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Double Jeopardy principles in cases involving complex drug and firearm offenses prosecuted in a single trial. It establishes that the unregisterable nature of machine guns under current law invalidates convictions for failing to register them, providing a critical due process protection. The ruling on multiple § 924(c) convictions highlights the importance of distinct underlying offenses to prevent multiplicitous punishments, guiding prosecutors and courts on how to properly frame such charges. Furthermore, the unequivocal rejection of self-defense as a justification for firearm use during drug trafficking underscores the broad deterrent purpose of § 924(c), reinforcing its strict application in drug-related contexts. The case also offers detailed guidance on chain of custody, sufficiency of evidence, various Double Jeopardy applications for drug-related conspiracies and substantive offenses, and sentencing enhancements.
