I. Name: Sillasse Bryan v. United States
II. Legal Citation: 524 U.S. 184 (1998)
III. Statement of Facts: On trial was Mr. Sillasse Bryan for a conviction of “willfully” dealing guns without a federal license. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) was added to the Criminal Code to prohibit anyone from "willfully" dealing firearms without a federal license. If proven guilty of conviction, a fine or imprisonment may be imposed against anyone who "willfully" violates certain requirements of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. At the lower court, the United States Court of Appeals, the judgment was affirmed. Bryan sought a review of the case and argued that the evidence was insufficient because there was no proof that he had knowledge of the federal licensing requirement. He also argued that the trial judge had made a mistake by failing to instruct the jury that he could be convicted only if he knew of the federal licensing requirement.
IV. Issue: Is the term "willfully" required proof that Bryan knew that his conduct was unlawful, or whether it also required proof that he knew of the federal licensing requirement?
V. Holding and Action: Yes, Affirmed.
VI. Rationale: Bryan did not have a …show more content…
Dissenting opinions: Justice Scalia, Ginsburg, and the Chief Justice join in dissenting, “the court points to no textual basis for that conclusion other than the notoriously malleable word "willfully" itself. Instead, it seems to fall back on a presumption that even where ignorance of the law is an excuse, that excuse should be construed as narrowly as the statutory language permits.” Justice Scalia talks more about not basing the court case on just presumptions but more on legal context, which leads his argument in dissenting.
IX. Vote tally: 6 -
II. Legal Citation: 524 U.S. 184 (1998)
III. Statement of Facts: On trial was Mr. Sillasse Bryan for a conviction of “willfully” dealing guns without a federal license. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) was added to the Criminal Code to prohibit anyone from "willfully" dealing firearms without a federal license. If proven guilty of conviction, a fine or imprisonment may be imposed against anyone who "willfully" violates certain requirements of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. At the lower court, the United States Court of Appeals, the judgment was affirmed. Bryan sought a review of the case and argued that the evidence was insufficient because there was no proof that he had knowledge of the federal licensing requirement. He also argued that the trial judge had made a mistake by failing to instruct the jury that he could be convicted only if he knew of the federal licensing requirement.
IV. Issue: Is the term "willfully" required proof that Bryan knew that his conduct was unlawful, or whether it also required proof that he knew of the federal licensing requirement?
V. Holding and Action: Yes, Affirmed.
VI. Rationale: Bryan did not have a …show more content…
Dissenting opinions: Justice Scalia, Ginsburg, and the Chief Justice join in dissenting, “the court points to no textual basis for that conclusion other than the notoriously malleable word "willfully" itself. Instead, it seems to fall back on a presumption that even where ignorance of the law is an excuse, that excuse should be construed as narrowly as the statutory language permits.” Justice Scalia talks more about not basing the court case on just presumptions but more on legal context, which leads his argument in dissenting.
IX. Vote tally: 6 -