Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the conviction of an individual, identified as a four-time felon, under the 'felon-in-possession' statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Following a hung jury in his initial trial, the defendant was convicted in a second jury trial for possessing a semiautomatic rifle. The defendant admitted to possessing the firearm but claimed it was for self-defense, a defense that the jury rejected. On appeal, he argued that he did not have a 'conviction' under federal law due to the restoration of civil rights under Indiana law, that the government presented perjured testimony, and that his counsel was wrongly barred from defining 'reasonable doubt' to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that under federal law, a felon remains barred from possessing firearms unless civil rights are substantially restored, which Indiana law did not achieve. The court also found no due process violation regarding alleged perjured testimony and upheld the lower court's restriction on defining 'reasonable doubt' to the jury. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, affirming the legality of the prosecution under the applicable federal statute.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of 'Conviction' under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the definition of 'conviction' depends on jurisdictional law and that Indiana's restoration of civil rights did not suffice to alter this status under federal law.
Reasoning: The definition of 'conviction' is determined by the jurisdiction of the proceedings, with exceptions for expunged convictions or pardons that explicitly restrict firearm possession.
Due Process and Perjured Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed due process claims related to alleged false testimony, stating that inconsistencies did not amount to perjury and the defense failed to show prosecutorial awareness of falsehoods.
Reasoning: The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of a new trial, as Thompson failed to prove that perjured testimony was presented, that the prosecution was aware of such perjury, or that it affected the jury's verdict.
Felon-in-Possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the statute to uphold the conviction of a felon possessing a firearm, emphasizing that under federal law, convicted felons remain prohibited from firearm possession unless their civil rights have been substantially restored.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the conviction, explaining that under § 922(g)(1), individuals convicted of crimes punishable by over one year of imprisonment are prohibited from firearm possession.
Jury Instruction on Reasonable Doubtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the district court's decision to prohibit counsel from defining 'reasonable doubt' to the jury, consistent with circuit norms.
Reasoning: Lastly, the court rejected Thompson's contention that the district court improperly restricted his counsel from defining 'reasonable doubt' to the jury, affirming that such definitions are not permitted in this circuit.
Restoration of Civil Rights and Felon Statussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Thompson's argument that Indiana law restored his civil rights was rejected, as the court cited precedent affirming federal prosecution in the absence of a general statute restoring civil rights.
Reasoning: The court referenced precedent from United States v. McKinley, which clarified that without a general statute restoring civil rights, a convicted felon remains subject to federal prosecution under § 922(g).