No. 20-1017

Lawrence Johnson v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 2nd-amendment affirmative-defense circuit-split civil-rights common-law criminal-law criminal-statute due-process firearm-possession law-enforcement statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference: 2021-06-17 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

In Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), this Court held that every "long-established common-law" affirmative defense is incorporated into the federal criminal code, even where a federal criminal statute "does not mention the defense." Id. at 13-14. One settled common-law affirmative defense to illegal possession crimes is the so-called "innocent transitory possession" defense. Courts in New York, for example, have long recognized that citizens bear a civic duty to surrender dangerous weapons to the police. The New York Court of Appeals has thus recognized, for longer than a century, that innocent possession of a weapon for a reasonable period of time to convey it to law enforcement authorities is not a violation of the State's illegal possession statutes.

The first question presented—over which there is a persistent and openly recognized split among the federal circuits—is whether innocent transitory possession is an affirmative defense to illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g).

The second question presented—which arises only if the Court denies review of the first question—is whether the Court should hold this case pending decisions on the merits in United States v. Gary, No. 20-444 (cert. granted Jan. 8, 2021) and Greer v. United States, No. 19-8709 (cert. granted Jan. 8, 2021).

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether innocent transitory possession is an affirmative defense to illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)

Docket Entries

2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-04-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
2021-03-31
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2021-02-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 31, 2021.
2021-02-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 1, 2021 to March 31, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 1, 2021)

Attorneys

Lawrence Johnson
Michael B. KimberlyMCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent