Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialpleafelonymens reajury trialguilty plea

defendanttrialpleawilljury trial

Related Cases

Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503, 141 S.Ct. 2090, 210 L.Ed.2d 121, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5595, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5720, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 853

Facts

Gregory Greer was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury trial where the jury was not instructed on the mens rea requirement that he knew he was a felon. Michael Gary entered a guilty plea to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the court did not inform him during the plea colloquy that he needed to know he was a felon. Both defendants raised new mens rea arguments on appeal based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif.

Greer's conviction resulted from a jury trial during which Greer did not request—and the District Court did not give—a jury instruction requiring the jury to find that Greer knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm. Gary pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. During Gary's plea colloquy, the District Court did not advise Gary that, if he went to trial, a jury would have to find that he knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearms.

Issue

Whether Greer and Gary are entitled to plain-error relief for their unpreserved Rehaif claims regarding the mens rea requirement for felon-in-possession offenses.

The question for this Court is whether Greer and Gary are entitled to plain-error relief for their unpreserved Rehaif claims.

Rule

For plain-error review, a defendant must show that there was an error, that the error was plain, and that the error affected substantial rights, meaning there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome would have been different.

To establish eligibility for plain-error relief, a defendant must show (i) that there was an error, (ii) that the error was plain, and (iii) that the error affects 'substantial rights,' i.e., that there is 'a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.'

Analysis

The Court found that both Greer and Gary failed to demonstrate that the Rehaif errors affected their substantial rights. Greer could not show a reasonable probability that a properly instructed jury would have acquitted him, given his prior felony convictions. Similarly, Gary did not argue that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not know he was a felon, which undermined his claim for relief.

Here, Greer and Gary have not carried the burden of showing that the Rehaif errors in their respective cases affected their substantial rights. Before their respective felon-in-possession offenses, both Greer and Gary had been convicted of multiple felonies. Those prior convictions are substantial evidence that they knew they were felons.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's judgment in Greer's case and reversed the Fourth Circuit's judgment in Gary's case, concluding that neither defendant satisfied the plain-error test.

In sum, as the Fifth Circuit aptly stated, demonstrating prejudice under Rehaif 'will be difficult for most convicted felons for one simple reason: Convicted felons typically know they're convicted felons.'

Who won?

The United States prevailed in both cases, as the Supreme Court found that neither Greer nor Gary met the burden of showing that the Rehaif errors affected their substantial rights.

The Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh, held that: … Greer and Gary have not carried that burden.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594

GEM Holdco, LLC v. Changing World Technologies, L.P., 127 A.D.3d 598, 8 N.Y.S.3d 119, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03398

McNeary v. American Cyanamid Co., 105 Wash.2d 136, 712 P.2d 845

United States v. Giglio, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 4918332

Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42