Justices Dubious About Feds’ ‘Career Criminal’ Interpretation

from Marco Poggio | Oct. 4, 2021 at 6:58 pm EDT

Listen to the article

Your browser does not support the audio element.

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared unconvinced on the grounds that lower courts are giving a longer sentence to a convicted felon caught in possession of firearms and showed heightened skepticism about the government’s position on the accused was classified as a “career criminal”.

During their first face-to-face oral argument in 18 months, the judges sought clarifications on how to interpret a provision of the Career Armed Criminal Code that provides a minimum of 15 years for offenders convicted of state gun crimes for three or more crimes “different Opportunities “.

William Dale Wooden was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of federal law and was convicted of a 2015 trial as a professional felon.

The district court sentenced him to 15 and a half years in prison, and the Sixth Circuit upheld the verdict in 2019.

Prosecutors argued that Wooden had crossed the three-sentence threshold. They cited a home break-in in 2005 and a separate mini-warehouse break-in in 1997 – the latter leading to 10 different convictions.

In his application for certiorari, which he filed in July 2020, Wooden argued that the district court incorrectly counted warehouse theft as 10 different offenses, and the appeals court made a mistake when it came to the government’s broad interpretation of what the career was meets, have taken over the sentence for the conviction according to the armed professional criminal law.

Wooden called on the Supreme Court to reject the law as “vague”.

On Monday, Assistant Attorney General Erica L. Ross reiterated the government’s position, arguing that two crimes are committed on different occasions when they involve different acts, even at the same time, in the same place and in violation of the same law.

But several judges seemed to struggle with this view and found it counterintuitive.

Judge Neil Gorsuch expressed his doubts through a hypothesis: a person who shoots three people with a gun in the same spot would constitute three different offenses, but in another scenario, a person who shows a gun and robs three people would be a crime for the purpose of the Armed Career Criminal Act according to the government, he said.

“Who thinks that, Ms. Ross, in the real world?” asked Judge Gorsuch.

Judge Stephen Breyer, who also found it difficult to insert himself into Ross’ argument, also showed his doubts with a fabricated scenario: A person robbing people on a train that goes from car to car would be on the threshold of a professional criminal while another multiple robbery people in a single car wouldnt.

“If you can convince me that Congress also intended to pass this … I’d love to hear it,” said Judge Breyer on Ross.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor echoed this skepticism, suggesting that the common people would find it difficult to use the government’s point of view in defining Wooden as a professional.

“Do you think the layman would believe that this was a career – that this person was a career criminal?” asked the judiciary.

Ross and Wooden’s pro bono attorney, Allon Kedem of Arnold & Porter, often referred to the 1986 case USA versus Petty.

In that case, the Eighth Circuit upheld a district court finding that Samuel Petty, a defendant convicted of armed robbery of six people in a restaurant, qualified for a higher sentence.

To counter a perceived injustice with this result, the Congress added the phrase “engaged on various occasions”. But the law has not defined what an occasion is and whether it is tied to deadlines, the legal elements or other factors.

Judge Samuel Alito said Monday that he was frustrated with the vagueness of the law.

“I have no idea what an occasion is,” said Judge Alito.

In his argument, Kedem told the judges to reject the government’s views and to stick to the language of the law.

“This court should read the opportunity clause as it would read in plain English,” said Kedem. “Mr. Wooden’s break-in into a mini-warehouse was a single case with 10 break-ins.”

The judges also found weaknesses in Wooden’s argument.

Judge Clarence Thomas urged Kedem to define how much time it would take between different criminal acts to be considered different criminal offenses.

“What if you take a smoke break? What if you decide to have lunch?” asked Judge Thomas. “Is that enough break?”

Kedem argued that separate acts should be counted as a single crime if there is “a continuous stream of activity” between them, but urged the Supreme Court to think beyond the time factor. Defining a professional criminal ultimately requires a “qualitative” analysis of the circumstances in each case, which means a consistent test will not work, he said.

“Qualitatively what?” a frustrated judge Alito replied. “What are we ultimately looking for?”

Judge Alito said he had difficulty seeing what factors, other than the fact that criminal acts were committed at the same time, could be used to interpret the language of the law in terms of “different occasions”.

“I find it very difficult to determine what additional meaning the term has,” said Judge Alito. “I’m not judging you for your efforts, but you make me scratch my head.”

Wooden is represented by Allon Kedem from Arnold & Porter.

The government is represented by Erica L. Ross of the US Solicitor General’s Office.

The case is Wood v United States, File Number 20-5279, in the United States Supreme Court.

– Editing by Alex Hubbard.