Opinion
No. 2:05-CR-70.
February 13, 2006
ORDER
The defendant has requested an "innocent possession" charge citing United States v. Herron, 432 F.3d 1127, 1135 (10th Cir. 2005). That case does not set out that charge, but instead that charge is given in United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619, 623 (D.C. Cir. 2001). However, the Sixth Circuit has held that a defendant's claim that he possessed a firearm for innocent purposes was not a legitimate defense to an unlawful possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). United States v. Rutledge, 33 F.3d 671, 673 (6th Cir. 1994).
Citing Rutledge and rejecting Mason, the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Gilbert, 430 F.3d 215, 220 (4th Cir. 2005) has also concluded:
Accordingly, we respectfully disagree with our one sister circuit that has recognized an innocent possession defense to a § 922(g)(1) charge, see United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619, 623 (D.C. Cir. 2001), and join the two that have expressly rejected one, see Teemer, 394 F.3d at 64-65; United States v. Hendricks, 319 F.3d 993, 1007 (7th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Adkins, 196 F.3d 1112, 1115 (10th Cir. 1999) (rejecting contention that knowledgeable and unjustified possession for "a mere second or two" falls outside § 922(g)); United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000) (rejecting contention that possession of a firearm "for an innocent reason" falls outside § 922(g)); United States v. Rutledge, 33 F.3d 671, 673 (6th Cir. 1994) (rejecting contention that possession of a firearm "for innocent purposes" was "a legitimate defense" to § 922(g)).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the defendant's requested jury instruction on "innocent possession" is DENIED, because this instruction is not a correct statement of the law. [Doc. 244].