user
Accomplished Advocate
Fed law re: "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence" - U.S. S.Ct ruling today
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1371_6b35.pdf
U.S.v. Castleman opinion attempts redefinition of "force" in order to broaden the scope of 18 usc 922(g), which prohibits possession of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. When you read the opinion, keep in mind that "mere dicta", that is, things that are said that are not necessary to the specific holding in the case are not precedent, and the use of artificial language constructions will not ordinarily be given any credit in future opinions.
First, "mere dicta": If you contrast J.Scalia's opinion with that of the majority, you can see that the latter contains a good deal of surplus stuff constituting personal opinions about what the legislature might have had in mind, and how bad domestic violence is in the U.S. None of that stuff was necessary to the holding. J.Scalia's opinion was solid and straightforward and explained why the defendant had been properly convicted under a Tennessee statute without all that excess baggage. Thus, it's clear that the excess baggage was not necessary to the holding in the case.
Secondly, the Court invented a "common law" definition of "force", equating "force" with "offensive touching" required for a conviction for common law battery. But there is no common law source for such an invention, it never existed, and there is no citation to any authority for the proposition in the opinion. The reason the Court used that artifice was to get around the holding in the Johnson case which construed the same phrase which is operative in the statute under consideration, "force and violence".
My opinion is that this decision interpreting Tennessee law has done absolutely nothing to change the law that applies. The states that have no definitions for "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence", such as Virginia remain unaffected, particulary with respect to courts not of record, where most convictions for domestic assault occur.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1371_6b35.pdf
U.S.v. Castleman opinion attempts redefinition of "force" in order to broaden the scope of 18 usc 922(g), which prohibits possession of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. When you read the opinion, keep in mind that "mere dicta", that is, things that are said that are not necessary to the specific holding in the case are not precedent, and the use of artificial language constructions will not ordinarily be given any credit in future opinions.
First, "mere dicta": If you contrast J.Scalia's opinion with that of the majority, you can see that the latter contains a good deal of surplus stuff constituting personal opinions about what the legislature might have had in mind, and how bad domestic violence is in the U.S. None of that stuff was necessary to the holding. J.Scalia's opinion was solid and straightforward and explained why the defendant had been properly convicted under a Tennessee statute without all that excess baggage. Thus, it's clear that the excess baggage was not necessary to the holding in the case.
Secondly, the Court invented a "common law" definition of "force", equating "force" with "offensive touching" required for a conviction for common law battery. But there is no common law source for such an invention, it never existed, and there is no citation to any authority for the proposition in the opinion. The reason the Court used that artifice was to get around the holding in the Johnson case which construed the same phrase which is operative in the statute under consideration, "force and violence".
My opinion is that this decision interpreting Tennessee law has done absolutely nothing to change the law that applies. The states that have no definitions for "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence", such as Virginia remain unaffected, particulary with respect to courts not of record, where most convictions for domestic assault occur.
